Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.
"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."
Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.
Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state's congressional delegation issued a joint statement attacking the legislation, one calling it "downright unconstitutional."
"Governor Scott's new drug testing law is not only an affront to families in need and detrimental to our nation's ongoing economic recovery, it is downright unconstitutional," said Rep. Alcee Hastings. "If Governor Scott wants to drug test recipients of TANF benefits, where does he draw the line? Are families receiving Medicaid, state emergency relief, or educational grants and loans next?"
Rep. Corrine Brown said the tests "represent an extreme and illegal invasion of personal privacy."
"Indeed, investigating people when there is probable cause to suspect they are abusing drugs is one thing," Brown said in the joint statement. "But these tests amount to strip searching our state's most vulnerable residents merely because they rely on the government for financial support during these difficult economic times."
Joining in the statement denouncing the measure were Democratic Reps. Kathy Castor, Ted Deutch and Frederica Wilson.
Controversy over the measure was heightened by Scott's past association with a company he co-founded that operates walk-in urgent care clinics in Florida and counts drug screening among the services it provides. In April, Scott, who had transferred his ownership interest in Solantic Corp. to a trust in his wife's name, said the company would not contract for state business, according to local media reports. He subsequently sold his majority stake in the company, local media reported.
On May 18, the Florida Ethics Commission ruled that two conflict-of-interest complaints against Scott were legally insufficient to warrant investigation, and adopted an opinion that no "prohibited conflict of interest" existed.
Also on Tuesday, Scott also signed a measure outlawing hallucinogenic designer drugs known as "bath salts."
"The chemical substances found in 'bath salts' constitute a significant threat to health and public safety," the governor's office said in a statement. "Poison control centers in Florida have reported 61 calls of 'bath salts' abuse, making Florida the state with the second-highest volume of calls."
The drugs "are readily available at convenience stores, discount tobacco outlets, gas stations, pawnshops, tattoo parlors, and truck stops, among other locations," the governor's office said.
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.
They don't need probable cause as they aren't forcing anyone to submit to the testing. Only those who want the government handouts take the test, and they are consenting to the test. It's not to send anybody to jail, just to weed out those who don't need the benefits. Logic obviously being that if you can buy drugs, you don't need government money for food, etc.
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.
Potentially violating their rights... bad Stopping people from buying drugs with tax payers money... good I hate how many dead beats get by here in ontario just sucking up government money for chicken fingers and pot and live in a shit hole and say things like. "heheh my salary was less than this". These people make me sick because they have no motivation to contribute to society. I am biased in my opinion because of knowing people like this. How effective this will be at stopping the kind of thing I am talking about I do not know. Addressing the issue is a good idea.
The government has every right to distribute tax money (welfare) to citizens it feels will be helped by the benefits.
I'm not sure what you mean by probable cause. This isn't a criminal investigation it's a policy that regulates welfare.
Again there's no question of guilt or innocence here.
You are required to fulfill many requirements to receive various forms of government assistance like unemployment, social security, food stamps, and others. This is simply an extension of those regulations to now include drug abuse, and I find it to be refreshing as someone who deals with welfare recipients on a regular basis.
I think this is a good idea. Nobody is forcing you to be on welfare. If you don't want to take the drug test, then go find another way to get money. It's not like it's illegal for them not to be on welfare.
Nothing to do with testing without probable cause, that only matters if people are being prosecuted or investigated, especially because from the looks of it even if they're not clean the money still goes to someone to help the person's children, I really can't see how this could be construed as going against someone's rights.
Unfortunately, as I'm completely against social programs to begin with, this is completely counter intuitive to the very nature of them. I'd prefer that we'd subsidize work ethic rather than poverty, but with the current system it's a terrible idea to put this type of a restriction on.
It's the role of society to take care of the individuals who needs the help, turning your back on them only gives them a chance to stick a knife in it.
I don't have a problem with this welfare is meant to help people out not for the purchase of drugs, I am 100% for social programs. However I don't think that welfare should be denied to those found on drugs, especially those with families/children, just some steps will need to be taken by those individuals if they want to get the welfare, not sure what steps exactly though =/
On June 10 2011 04:29 Babyfactory wrote: Unfortunately, as I'm completely against social programs to begin with, this is completely counter intuitive to the very nature of them. I'd prefer that we'd subsidize work ethic rather than poverty, but with the current system it's a terrible idea to put this type of a restriction on.
It's the role of society to take care of the individuals who needs the help, turning your back on them only gives them a chance to stick a knife in it.
And enabling them to buy drugs without ever having to work or do anything productive is NOT helping them... And if they're not on drugs, then good! We can know that we're helping someone get back on their feet.
On June 10 2011 04:30 BlueBird. wrote: I don't have a problem with this welfare is meant to help people out not for the purchase of drugs, I am 100% for social programs. However I don't think that welfare should be denied to those found on drugs, especially those with families/children, just some steps will need to be taken by those individuals if they want to get the welfare, not sure what steps exactly though =/
That's a good point too. Some people can be rehabilitated, but if you cut off their money that say 40% of goes to drugs and the rest for their room/food then you're essentially putting them out on the street and much more likely to get heavier into drugs and commit more crimes.
I'd say that the restrictions and requirements to receive general assistance (cash assistance, apartment/utilities subsidies, etc, not food stamps or disability) are stringent enough as it is.
If you truly look at the process to get on general cash assistance (true welfare) it is very difficult and often overlooks many situations where families probably deserve it.
Now there are significant issues with the SSDI/SSI system and food stamps, but with generalized/true welfare I don't think it's the rampant issue that people make it out to be.
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.
What exactly do they pay into with every paycheck while they are working ? Because they don't. The employer pays these types of things. The only thing employees pay into is Social Security and Medicare.
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.
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.
What exactly do they pay into with every paycheck while they are working ? Because they don't. The employer pays these types of things. The only thing employees pay into is Social Security and Medicare.
Wow, welfare legislation I agree with! The whole idea behind welfare is that the government is meeting the impoverished halfway (though a lot of the other restrictions don't weed out the right people).
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).
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).
Well you could always go get a job, then. But they might drug test you anyway.... If you don't want to be tested, then don't go on welfare. That is your right, to not be on welfare if you don't want to be (whatever the reason).
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.
What exactly do they pay into with every paycheck while they are working ? Because they don't. The employer pays these types of things. The only thing employees pay into is Social Security and Medicare.
So employers never go on welfare?
You said they pay into it with every paycheck, implying they pay into it as an employee. It's nice to know you've at least acknowledged that employees do NOT pay into these services.
I don't like welfare in the first place, but it isn't going to be gotten rid of any time soon. So if our taxes go to the gov't, which in turn pays these individuals, I want to make sure those people aren't spending my money on things they should not be. That being drugs.
Considering drugs cost money and the intent of welfare is to transition impoverished families/indidivuals to a productive and self-sufficient lifestyle/status, the idea that drug testing costing money should prevent this program from being enacted is quite silly.
Also, if you apply for welfare you are required to give up your personal information, along with medical records and arrest history. Requiring you to be drug-free is nothing extraneous or out of the question in any way.
On June 10 2011 04:30 BlueBird. wrote: I don't have a problem with this welfare is meant to help people out not for the purchase of drugs, I am 100% for social programs. However I don't think that welfare should be denied to those found on drugs, especially those with families/children, just some steps will need to be taken by those individuals if they want to get the welfare, not sure what steps exactly though =/
For food stamps this would make perfect sense, but not Welfare, even if the person does have dependents you can't give them money if they test positive because that money will not be going towards supporting those dependents in all likelihood. If they test positive they cannot be trusted to use the money the government is giving them responsibly.
On June 10 2011 04:36 Kaitlin wrote: You said they pay into it with every paycheck, implying they pay into it as an employee. It's nice to know you've at least acknowledged that employees do NOT pay into these services.
Considering the funding for generalized welfare comes from a redistribution of taxes, I don't see how you're claiming that people don't "pay into it."
Sure, technically you don't pay into a program specifically on your paycheck, but if you have worked and paid income tax as a citizen, you have paid into every government program, hence your eligibility.
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).
Well you could always go get a job, then. But they might drug test you anyway.... If you don't want to be tested, then don't go on welfare. That is your right, to not be on welfare if you don't want to be (whatever the reason).
I'm sorry but that argument is kind of silly. You think any honest person is going to give up their right to benefits because of a drug test? Furthermore who says druggies can't stay clean for a week to take the test? Pretty sure meth and hard drugs like that don't stay in your system as long as say weed or something.
On June 10 2011 04:29 Babyfactory wrote: Unfortunately, as I'm completely against social programs to begin with, this is completely counter intuitive to the very nature of them. I'd prefer that we'd subsidize work ethic rather than poverty, but with the current system it's a terrible idea to put this type of a restriction on.
It's the role of society to take care of the individuals who needs the help, turning your back on them only gives them a chance to stick a knife in it.
And enabling them to buy drugs without ever having to work or do anything productive is NOT helping them... And if they're not on drugs, then good! We can know that we're helping someone get back on their feet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, its not like they're gunna drug test to charge you with the usage/consumption of drugs. Its sort of like, "If you want 200 dollars, I'm gunna require that you do a drug test.",
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.
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).
Well you could always go get a job, then. But they might drug test you anyway.... If you don't want to be tested, then don't go on welfare. That is your right, to not be on welfare if you don't want to be (whatever the reason).
I'm sorry but that argument is kind of silly. You think any honest person is going to give up their right to benefits because of a drug test? Furthermore who says druggies can't stay clean for a week to take the test? Pretty sure meth and hard drugs like that don't stay in your system as long as say weed or something.
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.
On June 10 2011 04:29 Babyfactory wrote: Unfortunately, as I'm completely against social programs to begin with, this is completely counter intuitive to the very nature of them. I'd prefer that we'd subsidize work ethic rather than poverty, but with the current system it's a terrible idea to put this type of a restriction on.
It's the role of society to take care of the individuals who needs the help, turning your back on them only gives them a chance to stick a knife in it.
And enabling them to buy drugs without ever having to work or do anything productive is NOT helping them... And if they're not on drugs, then good! We can know that we're helping someone get back on their feet.
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.
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.
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.
I definitely agree with you that we should audit welfare users. Unfortunately that would be a massive undertaking.... Honestly, if I could choose between welfare audit and drug tests, I'd go for the audit. But people are going to complain about it being an invasion of their privacy either way. Which is irrelevant because they have to give up equally personal information just to get on welfare in the first place...
The welfare system needs a complete reworking. It is more broken than anything in any game I've ever played. But if this is all we get for right now, then fine. Eventually they'll have no choice but to rework it. Because, when you've got people sitting around collecting $60,000 a year on state benefits....There's a problem.
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.
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?
Agreed. It shouldn't matter who they are. If this is an attempt to "save" money, I find it to be quite sad that it has to come at the cost of the people who need "help" the most. IF the government wants to save money, it needs to start paying attention to its own coffers to find the people making "frivolous spending". It must be nice to have a tax payers constantly lining your pockets.
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.
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.
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).
Well you could always go get a job, then. But they might drug test you anyway.... If you don't want to be tested, then don't go on welfare. That is your right, to not be on welfare if you don't want to be (whatever the reason).
I'm sorry but that argument is kind of silly. You think any honest person is going to give up their right to benefits because of a drug test? Furthermore who says druggies can't stay clean for a week to take the test? Pretty sure meth and hard drugs like that don't stay in your system as long as say weed or something.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Florida is known as the drug trafficking capital of the United States. I am not surprised, since it is so easy to hand out licenses for "medical practices" in Florida, stick it on a sign, and call it pain therapy. I say a documentary that showed nearly every 4-5 blocks in certain parts of Florida have a "pain clinic".
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.
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.
SpoR if you find background investigations and drug testing to be too invasive, then perhaps you have a problem with the corporate model itself.
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...
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
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.
This is not even close to a 4th amendment issue, and anyone who believes that needs to seriously revisit constitutional law as a topic of interest if they're going to debate it.
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.
I think this law is an awesome idea. I feel it is a privilege to live in a country that provides some of its less fortunate citizens with wellfare, and it is imperative that wellfare funds are not wasted on illegal drugs.
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.
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.
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
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...
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?
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 04:42 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.
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.
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.
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 04:44 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.
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 05:02 DanceCommander wrote: 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?
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.
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 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 04:27 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?
On June 10 2011 05:02 DanceCommander wrote: 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?
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.
i think its great. This gets the money to the person in the family who is actually going to spend it how its supposed to be spent. Unconstitutional?? LoL!!!! Shudn't be asking for handouts - I think its a fair trade
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
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?
In most states, employer mandated drug tests are completely legal. State mandated drug tests are not. It's a separate issue altogether.
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption.
A good step in the right direction but I don't think you can really expect any kind of serious welfare reform from any sane person. The moment you even said it would lead to cries of racism,classism and every person wanting an easy re-election being against it if it gave them an advantage and it would.
It's no easy task to be both sensible and non-offensive to at least someone.
It's not so much a telling people how to spend the money they are given but a qualifier for getting it in the first place which I am okay with but again we need actual welfare that promotes getting off of it and back to work but that's another problem entirely.
Ever state needs to do this, who knows how many people on welfare, and and disability abuse the system, I know of a lady that has 8 kids, and is fit to work, but she just abuses the system and the state pays for everything. I know that she partakes in illegal drug use as well. I know arizona the "Controversal state" was thinking about doing this, and let me tell you I'm 100% into supporting this.
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption.
And that's a fine debate, what "should" be the requirements to become eligible for welfare or whatever other benefits. Florida has taken the stance that one of those requirements is successful drug screening. This is not a 4th Amendment issue, nor is anyone automatically "entitled" to such government benefits without qualification by whatever means the state requires.
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption.
Why do you say that? Why should the state give money to people who violate the law? Welfare isn't a right or anything, it's a gift from the state. Acting as if the people responsible for handing out the money can't have any standards doesn't make much sense.
Finally someone does something smart around here. I have firsthand experience knowing people who do this exact thing and am glad it is going to come to an end, or at least slowed heavily.
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption.
That is a matter of opinion. I would think that you can't be breaking the law and be receiving aid.
Making the use of drugs a disqualifier from receiving welfare is not an unreasonable search/seizure of your person.
The ACLU will of course file a suit, but the intent is to declare their objection through the courts, not to actually usurp the legislature's ability to enact this statute.
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
Not if it's unconstitutional...
You're doing verbal gymnastics here. People who otherwise qualify for welfare are being subjected to an illegal search in order to receive their benefits. That's the point. Claiming the test is part of qualifying for welfare instead of part of claiming benefits doesn't change the issue. This is a state-mandated search without cause and without a warrant. It's unconstitutional.
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption.
And that's a fine debate, what "should" be the requirements to become eligible for welfare or whatever other benefits. Florida has taken the stance that one of those requirements is successful drug screening. This is not a 4th Amendment issue, nor is anyone automatically "entitled" to such government benefits without qualification by whatever means the state requires.
Florida doesn't have the legal authority to make that provision. This is still a clear 4th amendment issue. They're not allowed to mandate the search no matter what.
On June 10 2011 05:11 Razith wrote: 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?
Well, for one, you could get rid of those pink glasses of yours and face the facts. Tests have flaws. As I previously mentioned, if you have taken - or are taking medicine regularly or, depending on the kind of medicine, some time before the drug test, you will be tested positive. Also, simply due to chance, even for extremely well designed tests, a small percentage of the people will be tested positive despite having taken no drugs - and vice versa.
Second, by the same logic, an employer should know about your intestinal cancer or your frivolous sexual behavior, too, as those are definitely important risk factors. People who have sex with a lot of partners run a higher risk of contracting STDs and some of them can be really really nasty.
Also, why stop at background checks for the actual employees? It could be important to know whether the future employee's parents are mentally healthy - psychopathology is usually heritable and you can never be too safe! To prevent your company from taking a PR hit, you should also investigate if your employees treat their children right...
While we're at it, your employee could be a spy - so it's better to track all his actions and movements around the complex - in fact this is true for every employee. This calls for around-the-clock video surveillance and computer monitoring.
Personally, I wish instead of giving government handouts, such as this, they should open up stores that sell the essentials, such as food, clothing, whatever the welfare funds are supposed to purchase, and provide them with some sort of card for qualifying individuals. This would prevent the funds from going to unintended outlets, unless of course someone sells what they buy in the stores.
This is sad. A lot of people are pushed into drug use by society. The government should help people off drugs, not punishing them even more.
Maybe I have too much faith in humanity. I do not believe that people who are given a fair chance in life would willingly start abusing drugs. Florida should try to keep people off drugs by rewarding those who do not do drugs. Punishing those who do is not the right way to go!
In short, it is bad welfare systems that put a lot of these people into drug problems to start with and I can only imagine that this will make matters worse.
While I should probably expect anger towards the idea, is it really that bad?
Personally I work full time and use the funds to pay my bills and use the rest to get high. In theory, I have a pretty big problem with someones taking but never giving back anything, cause lets be honest nobody wants to do shit after smoking up, except groceries. ( I say in theory cause I've never met anyone like this, and after I did I'd probably like them cause people who get high are usually pretty awesome. )
But for drugs beyond weed, I don't know because it would make heroin addicts ( arbitrary ) have to decide between a welfare paid shelter and their habbit, and my understanding is many of them would chose the drug and go homeless.
I should probably go read the rest of the thread, but I want to watch slayers alicia rolllllll
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
Not if it's unconstitutional...
You're doing verbal gymnastics here. People who otherwise qualify for welfare are being subjected to an illegal search in order to receive their benefits. That's the point. Claiming the test is part of qualifying for welfare instead of part of claiming benefits doesn't change the issue. This is a state-mandated search without cause and without a warrant. It's unconstitutional.
When you apply for welfare a thorough background check is already conducted: Your SSN is checked for legitimacy, your family's immigration status, your criminal history, medical history, substance abuse history, etc.
Most if not all of this information is protected by various laws and regulations.
When you submit an application to a federally funded organization (public assistance, welfare, food stamps, etc) the legislature (as a voice for the public) has every right to set regulations and restrictions.
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.
Yeah, but that's like saying that airport security is stupid because most people are innocent. Why not test? It's just a small safety precaution that weeds out drug users
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption.
And that's a fine debate, what "should" be the requirements to become eligible for welfare or whatever other benefits. Florida has taken the stance that one of those requirements is successful drug screening. This is not a 4th Amendment issue, nor is anyone automatically "entitled" to such government benefits without qualification by whatever means the state requires.
I haven't been following your back and forth with Omni; however, I do agree that is isn't a fourth amendment issue but it is a right to privacy issue, which isn't drawn from one single amendment, and the federal regulations of welfare (even though this references and claims to speak only of the state specific expenditure on welfare).
It wouldn't be the first time a state law would be removed due to it being unconstitutional or because it contradicted a federal law, regulation or mandate
I agree that there SHOULD be a debate on what qualifies one to receive welfare, but with how the current welfare system stands this has to be held on the federal level and not on the state level.
On June 10 2011 05:11 Razith wrote: 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?
Well, for one, you could get rid of those pink glasses of yours and face the facts. Tests have flaws. As I previously mentioned, if you have taken - or are taking medicine regularly or, depending on the kind of medicine, some time before the drug test, you will be tested positive. Also, simply due to chance, even for extremely well designed tests, a small percentage of the people will be tested positive despite having taken no drugs - and vice versa.
Second, by the same logic, an employer should know about your intestinal cancer or your frivolous sexual behavior, too, as those are definitely important risk factors. People who have sex with a lot of partners run a higher risk of contracting STDs and some of them can be really really nasty.
Also, why stop at background checks for the actual employees? It could be important to know whether the future employee's parents are mentally healthy - psychopathology is usually heritable and you can never be too safe! To prevent your company from taking a PR hit, you should also investigate if your employees treat their children right...
While we're at it, your employee could be a spy - so it's better to track all his actions and movements around the complex - in fact this is true for every employee. This calls for around-the-clock video surveillance and computer monitoring.
Watch Gattaca.
Do you know people that do nothing, live off a welfare check, and do drugs for a living with no interest of changing their situation? If you don't, then you really don't have an educated foot to stand on in this argument.
On June 10 2011 05:23 TS-Rupbar wrote: Maybe I have too much faith in humanity. I do not believe that people who are given a fair chance in life would willingly start abusing drugs. Florida should try to keep people off drugs by rewarding those who do not do drugs. Punishing those who do is not the right way to go!
The sad truth is that lots and lots of people who are given a fair chance willingly abuse drugs. Florida IS rewarding people who aren't on drugs by allowing them to receive aid...
Floridian here. If you're going to drug test, drug test everybody. Guess what? Rick Scott and his staff won't be getting drug tested even though they are State Employees and get our Tax Dollars.
The SOLE reason this is being implemented is because he and his medical industry buddies will benefit monetarily from it. Don't worry all that money that the state "saves" from kicking druggies off welfare will go directly to the drug testing companies and to the regular population when crime goes up. Also each person will have to pay for their own drug test(cut from the check they get) and won't get compensated if they come out clean. That's also less money to people who did ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong that just vanishes.
Few will benefit and the majority will suffer. I'm interested to see how much money Florida "saves" after this boondoggle.
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption.
What if your "financial needs" are mostly needing to purchase drugs to get high? The nature of the financial needs is important.
On June 10 2011 05:26 Scorcher2k wrote: Do you know people that do nothing, live off a welfare check, and do drugs for a living with no interest of changing their situation? If you don't, then you really don't have an educated foot to stand on in this argument.
You have provided no argument, you're just moving the goalpost. Please provide one, so I can debunk it.
On June 10 2011 05:11 Razith wrote: 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?
Well, for one, you could get rid of those pink glasses of yours and face the facts. Tests have flaws. As I previously mentioned, if you have taken - or are taking medicine regularly or, depending on the kind of medicine, some time before the drug test, you will be tested positive. Also, simply due to chance, even for extremely well designed tests, a small percentage of the people will be tested positive despite having taken no drugs - and vice versa.
Second, by the same logic, an employer should know about your intestinal cancer or your frivolous sexual behavior, too, as those are definitely important risk factors. People who have sex with a lot of partners run a higher risk of contracting STDs and some of them can be really really nasty.
Also, why stop at background checks for the actual employees? It could be important to know whether the future employee's parents are mentally healthy - you can never be too safe! To prevent your company from taking a PR hit, you should also investigate if your employees treat their children right...
While we're at it, your employee could be a spy - so it's better to track all his actions and movements around the complex - in fact this is true for every employee. This calls for around-the-clock video surveillance and computer monitoring.
You bleeding-heart liberals never cease to amaze me, I hope you're trolling.
If you test positive for a drug because of medication, show proof of medication from a doctor's note or something. If the test fails, retake it if its only a small percentage that it errors.
And now you go on some ridiculous rant that makes no sense. Intestinal cancer? Frivolous sex behavior? I won't tell you, but theres one glaring difference between those 2 and what I suggested.
while it seems that this is prejudice in a way, I certainly would NOT WANT ANYONE who is using our welfare system to be spending that money on drugs...
On June 10 2011 05:26 Scorcher2k wrote: Do you know people that do nothing, live off a welfare check, and do drugs for a living with no interest of changing their situation? If you don't, then you really don't have an educated foot to stand on in this argument.
You have provided no argument, you're just moving the goalpost. Please provide one, so I can debunk it.
I moved the goal post because you are simply playing devil's advocate and it isn't needed. If you don't have experience with people like this then you have no place just spewing crap from your mouth. It is that simple.
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
Not if it's unconstitutional...
You're doing verbal gymnastics here. People who otherwise qualify for welfare are being subjected to an illegal search in order to receive their benefits. That's the point. Claiming the test is part of qualifying for welfare instead of part of claiming benefits doesn't change the issue. This is a state-mandated search without cause and without a warrant. It's unconstitutional.
Dude. "Consent". Look it up.
That's not a rebuttal.
An illegal search is mandated in order to receive benefits to which you are entitled. The fact that the state doesn't literally hold you down to extract blood or urine from you doesn't mean you're allowed to consent. If you "consent," you get the benefits you're legally entitled to. If you don't, the state withholds your benefits.
You're using the word "consent" in a place it doesn't belong. The state can't legally force you to choose between taking a drug test and receiving your benefits. That's the definition of an unreasonable search.
welfare is minuscule in romania, you would live a very limited life if relying on it
i completely agree with this check though, i mean you're living off on the money from the people who actually do something for a living instead on leeching off the others.
the state has every right to check everything, including urine / blood tests. you don't want to be tested, then gtfo it's not like anyone is forcing you to test.
i hope that in the future medical technology will develop and obtain cheap, reliable and fast methods to check for illegal substances. and also those found to be using drugs should be getting a criminal record
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption.
What if your "financial needs" are mostly needing to purchase drugs to get high? The nature of the financial needs is important.
Who is to determine the importance of any specific purchase? You say drugs aren't, but you aren't the one making the purchase nor are you the one receiving this financial aid. You don't know the utility that those drugs have for the person. And yes, I just took a very bullshit approach.
I'm a firm supporter of allowing those in poverty to have more than their fair share of alcohol and illicit drugs. We can't all have two to three minimum wage jobs, we can't all be captains of industry, we can't all make ends meet by ourselves, and some of us have to live below the line. I'm for letting them using something to make life a little more bearable and enjoyable. Are you going to tell them they have to shop at thrift store instead of purchasing brand name clothing?
And, I'm just curious, it's easy to get behind the band wagon of making it harder for drug users to obtain their drugs, but what if this legislation targeted those who had an abortion? It's an outrageous comparison, I know, but it still stands as a valid argument and question. IF you can target drug users, why can't you target others that might engage in otherwise illicit, nefarious, or ethically questionable activities?
On June 10 2011 05:34 Omnipresent wrote: That's not a rebuttal.
An illegal search is mandated in order to receive benefits to which you are entitled. The fact that the state doesn't literally hold you down to extract blood or urine from you doesn't mean you're allowed to consent. If you "consent," you get the benefits you're legally entitled to. If you don't, the state withholds your benefits.
You're using the word "consent" in a place it doesn't belong. The state can't legally force you to choose between taking a drug test and receiving your benefits. That's the definition of an unreasonable search.
You keep ignoring my posts but I'll continue to provide counterpoints to your argument (that is without basis) for other people's benefit:
You are only entitled to benefits if you fit the qualifications of the program.
People who smoke cigarettes who have COPD and are on Oxygen 24/7 are not entitled to their benefits from Social Security Disability despite how much they've paid in becuase they are violating the qualifications of the program.
The same is said for any requirement or background qualification of any government program.
Technically we've all paid in, and are all entitled to attempt to qualify.
Just like SSDI, you don't automatically qualify for welfare. Screening for drug use as a qualifying feature is an addition to the legislation, not a complete reworking of the ideology behind it, nor is it unconstitutional.
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
Not if it's unconstitutional...
You're doing verbal gymnastics here. People who otherwise qualify for welfare are being subjected to an illegal search in order to receive their benefits. That's the point. Claiming the test is part of qualifying for welfare instead of part of claiming benefits doesn't change the issue. This is a state-mandated search without cause and without a warrant. It's unconstitutional.
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption.
And that's a fine debate, what "should" be the requirements to become eligible for welfare or whatever other benefits. Florida has taken the stance that one of those requirements is successful drug screening. This is not a 4th Amendment issue, nor is anyone automatically "entitled" to such government benefits without qualification by whatever means the state requires.
Florida doesn't have the legal authority to make that provision. This is still a clear 4th amendment issue. They're not allowed to mandate the search no matter what.
Except for the fact that you're completely wrong. They aren't prosecuting people if the test comes back positive.
There are several things wrong with this. First of all, poor drug addicts are the type of people society should be trying to help the most. We shouldn't be turning our backs to these people. Second, just because someone tests positive for drug use doesnt mean they are a drug addict. Third, just because someone tests positive for drugs doesn't mean the person spent any money on drugs. What if my friend smoked a joint with me for free? That means I shouldn't be able to receive welfare? Terrible, just terrible.
On June 10 2011 05:42 Mastermind wrote: There are several things wrong with this. First of all, poor drug addicts are the type of people society should be trying to help the most. We shouldn't be turning our backs to these people. Second, just because someone tests positive for drug use doesnt mean they are a drug addict. Third, just because someone tests positive for drugs doesn't mean the person spent any money on drugs. What if my friend smoked a joint with me for free? That means I shouldn't be able to receive welfare? Terrible, just terrible.
You would probably only be on welfare if you were a single parent anyway, so....Yes, if you smoked pot around your children (or otherwise neglected them by leaving them unattended) then you don't deserve to receive welfare.
On June 10 2011 05:42 Mastermind wrote: There are several things wrong with this. First of all, poor drug addicts are the type of people society should be trying to help the most. We shouldn't be turning our backs to these people. Second, just because someone tests positive for drug use doesnt mean they are a drug addict. Third, just because someone tests positive for drugs doesn't mean the person spent any money on drugs. What if my friend smoked a joint with me for free? That means I shouldn't be able to receive welfare? Terrible, just terrible.
No one is advocating the destruction of food stamps, public needle recycling programs, rehabilitation centers, or anything like that.
However, the welfare program (actual welfare, not food stamps or ssdi etc.) is a cash assistance program. You are literally sent a check from the government.
The government is entitled to make requirements as to the eligibility to receive these funds.
If passing a drug test periodically is required to receive said funds, then that is the perogative of the legislature.
No one is mentioning that this program is just that, a program. It was created less than 100 years ago and is a financial benefit program for the severely destitute.
It is meant as a surplus system to instill upward mobility into destitute individuals and families.
On June 10 2011 05:42 Mastermind wrote: There are several things wrong with this. First of all, poor drug addicts are the type of people society should be trying to help the most. We shouldn't be turning our backs to these people. Second, just because someone tests positive for drug use doesnt mean they are a drug addict. Third, just because someone tests positive for drugs doesn't mean the person spent any money on drugs. What if my friend smoked a joint with me for free? That means I shouldn't be able to receive welfare? Terrible, just terrible.
Your first point is true, drug addicts need help, there are some honest ones that wouldn't waste the money.
Your second point doesn't matter. If they test positive it means they used a drug recently, where that money could have went towards food or shelter.
Your third point doesn't matter. If you are on welfare, you shouldn't be smoking weed or doing any other drugs that make time pass, you should be looking for work with 100% of your time.
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption.
What if your "financial needs" are mostly needing to purchase drugs to get high? The nature of the financial needs is important.
Who is to determine the importance of any specific purchase? You say drugs aren't, but you aren't the one making the purchase nor are you the one receiving this financial aid. You don't know the utility that those drugs have for the person. And yes, I just took a very bullshit approach.
I'm a firm supporter of allowing those in poverty to have more than their fair share of alcohol and illicit drugs. We can't all have two to three minimum wage jobs, we can't all be captains of industry, we can't all make ends meet by ourselves, and some of us have to live below the line. I'm for letting them using something to make life a little more bearable and enjoyable. Are you going to tell them they have to shop at thrift store instead of purchasing brand name clothing?
And, I'm just curious, it's easy to get behind the band wagon of making it harder for drug users to obtain their drugs, but what if this legislation targeted those who had an abortion? It's an outrageous comparison, I know, but it still stands as a valid argument and question. IF you can target drug users, why can't you target others that might engage in otherwise illicit, nefarious, or ethically questionable activities?
Yes. If you live off welfare checks, you probably SHOULD shop cheaply. And no, you SHOULDN'T do drugs. This subjective morality BS is so sickening. It annoys me. "Well, their life sucks, they should be able to do so and so." Darn it, no they shouldn't. You can't justify wrong with more wrong. For God's sake, wake up folks. Life is not fair. It never has been. Imo, there should not be welfare in the first place. It is not the government's job or right to start handing out checks to people. Sorry, it is just how it is. And I can say this stuff. I live in a lower-middle class family. (And even if I didn't, it wouldn't really matter) I'm thankful to have internet. This thing where we are okay with drugs (which tear families apart) and the poor taking money that we, the taxpayers give them (because gov't forces us to, which I believe is a breach of rights. I should be giving the poor money out of my own kindness and charitable will, not because some men in a suit are forcing me to do so) and spend it on things that are not helping them pay their bills and climb up the ladder. You want to stay at the bottom? Stay at the damn bottom, but do not take my money and do so. If you're going to take the money the gov't takes from hard-working citizens just so satisfy your deplorable little "oh, feel sorry for me, I'm poor" attitude, you're stealing our money and you don't deserve a damn penny.
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.
On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it.Makes perfect sense to me.
I see what you did there ^_^
This is pretty crazy, it kinda makes sense but seems harsh as fuck to me. Also won't it increase crime rates by making it the only resort for people on welfare with drug problems?
On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it.Makes perfect sense to me.
I see what you did there ^_^
This is pretty crazy, it kinda makes sense but seems harsh as fuck to me. Also won't it increase crime rates by making it the only resort for people on welfare with drug problems?
Life is harsh, bro. Too bad. They can stay poor and on drugs if they want, but they'd better do it with their own darn money.
On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it.Makes perfect sense to me.
I see what you did there ^_^
This is pretty crazy, it kinda makes sense but seems harsh as fuck to me. Also won't it increase crime rates by making it the only resort for people on welfare with drug problems?
Life is harsh, bro. Too bad. They can stay poor and on drugs if they want, but they'd better do it with their own darn money.
I see what you're saying but my point is their own darn money without welfare usually means other people's money that they stole.
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.
On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it.Makes perfect sense to me.
I see what you did there ^_^
This is pretty crazy, it kinda makes sense but seems harsh as fuck to me. Also won't it increase crime rates by making it the only resort for people on welfare with drug problems?
Life is harsh, bro. Too bad. They can stay poor and on drugs if they want, but they'd better do it with their own darn money.
I see what you're saying but my point is their own darn money without welfare usually means other people's money that they stole.
Sad, isn't it? But you cannot help those who shall not help themselves. :c
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.
This is actually quite true. But even so, our money. OUR money. I don't want OUR money being spent on their drugs. Use your own darn money and ruin what little your family has. Your choice.
I work with several people on food stamps who I know also do drugs. I wish they did this in my state. Hell, maybe if they didn't spend there limited money on cigarretes as well, maybe they could afford food for themselves without government assistance.
On June 10 2011 05:56 damageinc wrote: I work with several people on food stamps who I know also do drugs. I wish they did this in my state. Hell, maybe if they didn't spend there limited money on cigarretes as well, maybe they could afford food for themselves without government assistance.
My sister uses food stamps. She spends her money on useless crap and then wonders, "Oh, where is money for my food?" Her poor children. -Sighs.- ;c
On June 10 2011 05:56 damageinc wrote: I work with several people on food stamps who I know also do drugs. I wish they did this in my state. Hell, maybe if they didn't spend there limited money on cigarretes as well, maybe they could afford food for themselves without government assistance.
My sister uses food stamps. She spends her money on useless crap and then wonders, "Oh, where is money for my food?" Her poor children. -Sighs.- ;c
Honestly, the children are who I feel for the most. Whether their parents are on drugs or not, I can't help but feel that they don't even have a fighting chance in all of this mess.
On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it.Makes perfect sense to me.
I see what you did there ^_^
This is pretty crazy, it kinda makes sense but seems harsh as fuck to me. Also won't it increase crime rates by making it the only resort for people on welfare with drug problems?
Life is harsh, bro. Too bad. They can stay poor and on drugs if they want, but they'd better do it with their own darn money.
So you think - poor people is not a social problem that affects you in any way whatsoever. - Or do you agree it's a problem, but doesn't think we should do anything to solve the problem? - Or do you think it's a problem, we do need a solution. But welfare and welfare drug testing aren't solutions? If so, what are?
On June 10 2011 05:56 damageinc wrote: I work with several people on food stamps who I know also do drugs. I wish they did this in my state. Hell, maybe if they didn't spend there limited money on cigarretes as well, maybe they could afford food for themselves without government assistance.
My sister uses food stamps. She spends her money on useless crap and then wonders, "Oh, where is money for my food?" Her poor children. -Sighs.- ;c
Honestly, the children are who I feel for the most. Whether their parents are on drugs or not, I can't help but feel that they don't even have a fighting chance in all of this mess.
Tell me about it. :/ I take care of my little niece and nephews very often. They drive me crazy. They have disabilities and handicaps, and they are a handful... but I love them with all my heart and many times I'm afraid to let them go.
On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it.Makes perfect sense to me.
I see what you did there ^_^
This is pretty crazy, it kinda makes sense but seems harsh as fuck to me. Also won't it increase crime rates by making it the only resort for people on welfare with drug problems?
Life is harsh, bro. Too bad. They can stay poor and on drugs if they want, but they'd better do it with their own darn money.
So you think - poor people is not a social problem that affects you in any way whatsoever. - Or do you agree it's a problem, but doesn't think we should do anything to solve the problem? - Or do you think it's a problem, we do need a solution. But welfare and welfare drug testing aren't solutions? If so, what are?
The third. The solution? People need to help people. Gov't can stay out of it. Also, those people that are poor need to help themselves. They rely too much on the government, and not enough on themselves and the people who love them. But alas, we have welfare, so we may as well have welfare drug testing to make sure our money doesn't go to things it should not (drugs).
This is good legislation. There is no constitutional issue unless you're really reaching. As someone stated previously, people are entitled to an equal opportunity to apply for welfare. Whether or not they receive it is up to state qualifications. The money is not guaranteed to be handed to you. This should be nationwide legislation. Free money should not be used on drugs. The "it doesn't matter where it came from argument" is pretty ridiculous. Of course it matters because the public at large is the original owner and gifts the money to help society in the end. The money should not and be used in the comission of crime period. You are NOT free to partake in criminal acts, nowhere in the bill of rights is that stated. If you have been found to take drugs, ie commit a felony, you are not entitled to welfare. This isn't a hard concept it's entirely legal and a step forward.
Well not giving out money will force them into committing crimes, an addict will always get the fix no matter what. How much are the drug tests gonna cost the state? What if its only a low percentage of the welfare users that use drugs, won't they actually LOSE money by doing this then? And how much will be saved by doing this? If they find drug use will they help the drug user or just throw them back to the streets?
Where is the trust? USA starting to look more and more like a police state "better safe then sorry!" amirite?
On June 10 2011 06:00 Alexhandr wrote: The solution? People need to help people. Gov't can stay out of it. Also, those people that are poor need to help themselves. They rely too much on the government, and not enough on themselves and the people who love them. But alas, we have welfare, so we may as well have welfare drug testing to make sure our money doesn't go to things it should not (drugs).
But how do we apply that? How do we solve that problem without the government?
And don't you think that whatever we decide to do to help them, the government has enough resources to help us to help them? So why must they stay out if they can be part of the solution?
On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it.Makes perfect sense to me.
I see what you did there ^_^
This is pretty crazy, it kinda makes sense but seems harsh as fuck to me. Also won't it increase crime rates by making it the only resort for people on welfare with drug problems?
Life is harsh, bro. Too bad. They can stay poor and on drugs if they want, but they'd better do it with their own darn money.
So you think - poor people is not a social problem that affects you in any way whatsoever. - Or do you agree it's a problem, but doesn't think we should do anything to solve the problem? - Or do you think it's a problem, we do need a solution. But welfare and welfare drug testing aren't solutions? If so, what are?
Communities coming together and helping the poor in a completely voluntary way. They'd be more effective at it then a federal bureaucrat, and more efficient with the money. No middle man would be getting paid a massive salary, and no one would have a gun pointed at there head and told to help the poor. Spending someone else's money is not an act of compassion. If you gathered all the money from all the government programs designed to help the poor, and divided it by the number of people bellow the poverty line, they would live quite comfortably and not be in poverty. But the money doesn't go to them. It goes to someones salary. It goes to a parasitic organism, sucking off of and bogging down the economy by lowering the disposable income of the productive bit of society.
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.
This is an absolute brilliant idea. Welfare countries like Canada and Australia should follow suit. Because of freeloaders reliant on welfare, people like myself who work hard for a little bit of money have to pay a shit ton of income taxes.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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.
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 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 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 06:22 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 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.
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.
Provide a source where someone is being forced into receiving welfare.
I don't understand what your definition of "forced" is.
Forced by another human being, or an institution. That was pretty obvious from my context. Are you thinking forced by nature, or the situation they're in?
I see this as a way to help people get of drugs, while also make sure that welfare money goes to the right things. ( Not drugs that is.) Natrually this costs more money then f you just handed out the money for everyone eligible, but I belive that the benefits outweighs the costs.
Provide a source where someone is being forced into receiving welfare.
I don't understand what your definition of "forced" is.
Forced by another human being, or an institution. That was pretty obvious from my context. Are you thinking forced by nature, or the situation they're in?
"Forced" means "forced by another human being, or an institution"?
This is a very selective definition. It's almost tautological. For example, no one is "forced" to die according to this definition, but everybody does so anyways.
There's a lot of different things that "force" us to do things, according to the common definition. Why limit it to humans or institutions?
Provide a source where someone is being forced into receiving welfare.
I don't understand what your definition of "forced" is.
Forced by another human being, or an institution. That was pretty obvious from my context. Are you thinking forced by nature, or the situation they're in?
"Forced" means "forced by another human being, or an institution"?
This is a very selective definition. It's almost tautological. For example, no one is "forced" to die according to this definition, but everybody does so anyways.
There's a lot of different things that "force" us to do things, according to the common definition. Why limit it to humans or institutions?
You're not forced to do something if you could choose to do otherwise. Got murdered? You didn't have much of a choice on the dying part, I'd say it was forced. Decided to fill out a welfare application.... doesn't sound forced to me unless there's someone holding a gun to your head.
Provide a source where someone is being forced into receiving welfare.
I don't understand what your definition of "forced" is.
Forced by another human being, or an institution. That was pretty obvious from my context. Are you thinking forced by nature, or the situation they're in?
"Forced" means "forced by another human being, or an institution"?
This is a very selective definition. It's almost tautological. For example, no one is "forced" to die according to this definition, but everybody does so anyways.
There's a lot of different things that "force" us to do things, according to the common definition. Why limit it to humans or institutions?
Did you know that context is integral to the English language?
Edit: If everyone took the time to consider every possible interpretation in their sentences we'd never get anything said. Though admittedly, we'd develop a tremendous amount of patience, as we'd be listening to people finish all the necessary clarifications while knowing the entire time what they're saying.
Provide a source where someone is being forced into receiving welfare.
I don't understand what your definition of "forced" is.
Forced by another human being, or an institution. That was pretty obvious from my context. Are you thinking forced by nature, or the situation they're in?
"Forced" means "forced by another human being, or an institution"?
This is a very selective definition. It's almost tautological. For example, no one is "forced" to die according to this definition, but everybody does so anyways.
There's a lot of different things that "force" us to do things, according to the common definition. Why limit it to humans or institutions?
It seems they don't understand... it's not worth arguing with people who just want to argue . It's a shame that these topics always devolve to this.
drug tests are stupid because there's so many ways to beat them so only the uninformed get caught.
also there's nothing wrong with taking drugs responsibly and anyone who thinks drugs are always bad without exception is brainwashed by d.a.r.e. highschool programs when they were young.
On June 10 2011 07:16 ewswes wrote: drug tests are stupid because there's so many ways to beat them so only the uninformed get caught.
also there's nothing wrong with taking drugs and anyone who thinks drugs are bad is brainwashed by d.a.r.e. highschool programs when they were young.
Yeah... So when my uncle overdosed on heroin last year, I guess there must have been another problem. (Not being sarcastic, that actually happened). Sorry, but you're pretty naive.
It's incorrect to stereotype people on welfare. Just because they are poor does not mean they are druggies. This is a huge invasion of privacy and we should not be taking away peoples rights because they get in a shitty situation.
Completely ridiculous, a clear violation of constitutional right to privacy, not to mention morally fucked up as well-- if we are doing this to welfare people why not also to everyone else receiving any kind of government benefits/money? It unfairly singles them out. And why not test for gambling or pre-marital sex too in these people? Lottery tickets? Cigarettes? Not giving up your seat on the bus to old ladies? Didn't say grace before dinner last night? Liquor on Sundays? What other kinds of immorality should exclude people from receiving welfare? Its just so hypocritical, the government should never legislate morality.
The biggest issue is the violation of privacy. Instead of this crap why not just make the drugs legal? That'd save way more money (i assume the point of this is to save money or something?). The right to refuse spontaneous and unwarranted searches by the government is a critical part of the constitution and an inalienable right which this new law tramples all over.
The fact that there are so many stupid people out there that support this kind of thing amazes me, but that amazement turns in to hopeless disappointment when i realize that its because people support it that violations of rights like these get passed. Tyranny of the majority to the max.
On June 10 2011 07:16 ewswes wrote: drug tests are stupid because there's so many ways to beat them so only the uninformed get caught.
also there's nothing wrong with taking drugs responsibly and anyone who thinks drugs are always bad without exception is brainwashed by d.a.r.e. highschool programs when they were young.
This is true, and drug prohibition should end, but welfare money shouldn't be spent on drugs regardless. It would be like placing other stipulations such as, "you agree not to purchase a car worth more than x dollars".
On June 10 2011 07:21 funnybananaman wrote: completely ridiculous, a clear violation of constitutional right to privacy, not to mention morally fucked up as well-- if we are doing this to welfare people why not also to everyone else receiving any kind of government benefits/money? It unfairly singles them out. But the biggest issue is the violation of privacy. Instead of this crap why not just make the drugs legal? That'd save way more money (i assume the point of this is to save money or something?)
The point is that they don't piss away taxpayer dollars on useless vices, instead of spending it taking care of their children like they're supposed to. Legalizing drugs would just be like sweeping the problem under the carpet so someone else has to deal with it.
On June 10 2011 07:21 funnybananaman wrote: completely ridiculous, a clear violation of constitutional right to privacy, not to mention morally fucked up as well-- if we are doing this to welfare people why not also to everyone else receiving any kind of government benefits/money? It unfairly singles them out. But the biggest issue is the violation of privacy. Instead of this crap why not just make the drugs legal? That'd save way more money (i assume the point of this is to save money or something?)
Its conditional to accepting the money, someone agreeing to take a drug test is not a violation of their 4th amendment rights.
On June 10 2011 07:25 DamnCats wrote: I like how if you're on welfare you can be as much of alcoholic as you want. Basically the worst drug ever. WTG florida.
That's not an argument against the policy, that's an argument for adding alcohol in as well.
It only hurts people who are on drugs breaking the law already. They should drug test people by monthly and create more government jobs. Having people go around and collect these drug tests to make sure everyone is staying clean. If you are working for your own money and want to do drugs go for it I don't care but if your using the system and tax payers money GTFO...
Wow, this is how all states should do it. Can't believe Florida was actually the first one to do it, though, because usually they're always behind everyone else lol.
I see many people saying that it's fine to buy drugs with your own money but not with money given to you by the government, the government wastes billions each year on the war on drugs, does spending a small amount more of government money on drugs really make a difference?
On June 10 2011 05:18 Boblhead wrote: Ever state needs to do this, who knows how many people on welfare, and and disability abuse the system, I know of a lady that has 8 kids, and is fit to work, but she just abuses the system and the state pays for everything. I know that she partakes in illegal drug use as well. I know arizona the "Controversal state" was thinking about doing this, and let me tell you I'm 100% into supporting this.
she has 8 kids and you want her to find a job? are u sick in the head? Do you have any idea how hard it is to even raise 1 child?
Great move by the Florida government, hope more states follow suit shortly. If unemployed people are going to live on taxpayer dollars, the least they could do in return is not squander those dollars on drug habits.
On June 10 2011 07:36 t1bZ wrote: Great move by the Florida government, hope more states follow suit shortly. If unemployed people are going to live on taxpayer dollars, the least they could do in return is not squander those dollars on drug habits.
This. We're giving you the money. So we should have some say to make sure it's not going to illegal activities.
On June 10 2011 07:35 jello_biafra wrote: I see many people saying that it's fine to buy drugs with your own money but not with money given to you by the government, the government wastes billions each year on the war on drugs, does spending a small amount more of government money on drugs really make a difference?
Well in the very least the money is spent fighting the spread of drugs, not buying them. When someone is milking the system they are hurting everyone in their community, The government is spending lots of money on lots of things. Though if they save even $.01 because someone failed a drug test that wanted to be on welfare/unemployment well thats still a win in my book.
On June 10 2011 07:29 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: I personally feel this is a great idea.
It only hurts people who are on drugs breaking the law already. They should drug test people by monthly and create more government jobs. Having people go around and collect these drug tests to make sure everyone is staying clean. If you are working for your own money and want to do drugs go for it I don't care but if your using the system and tax payers money GTFO...
Actually, it hurts the taxpayer, because if you read the article you would know the drug tests are paid for by EVERYONE on welfare, and the cost is paid back to them by the welfare office if they are clean.
So instead of paying for drug addicts maybe (since knowing someone uses drugs doesn't actually tell you anything about what they spend their money on), you are guaranteed to pay for many expensive frivolous drug tests.
Anyone who jumps on board of "Fuck u, drug users, im not paying!" is just spewing propaganda without actually thinking about how the world works. This arrangement will cost the state more money than just paying people who may or may not be taking drugs, but qualified for assistance based on their finances - for which the amount of money they receive is already based on their bills and expenses, which have to be proven to the welfare office with receipts and records of payment - meaning they don't really have money for drugs anyways unless they lied about their rent.
This legislation is basically saying everyone on welfare is guility of fraud, and they must submit to an expensive drug test to prove their innocence.
So before you go FUCK YEAH, AMERICA, WE BEAT THE DRUG USERS, actually think about the mechanics of the situation, and who will be paying for it.
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.
That's exactly how I feel. Of course people without a job are going to stay without a job if they spend their days on hard drugs. This helps them. I just hope they don't go to prison if they are found to be using drugs, and given help instead.
On June 10 2011 04:30 BlueBird. wrote: I don't have a problem with this welfare is meant to help people out not for the purchase of drugs, I am 100% for social programs. However I don't think that welfare should be denied to those found on drugs, especially those with families/children, just some steps will need to be taken by those individuals if they want to get the welfare, not sure what steps exactly though =/
That's a good point too. Some people can be rehabilitated, but if you cut off their money that say 40% of goes to drugs and the rest for their room/food then you're essentially putting them out on the street and much more likely to get heavier into drugs and commit more crimes.
did people miss the point where it said if you are found to be on drugs, you can designate someone else to recieve your benefits on behalf of your children?
On June 10 2011 07:21 funnybananaman wrote: Completely ridiculous, a clear violation of constitutional right to privacy, not to mention morally fucked up as well-- if we are doing this to welfare people why not also to everyone else receiving any kind of government benefits/money? It unfairly singles them out. And why not test for gambling or pre-marital sex too in these people? Lottery tickets? Cigarettes? Not giving up your seat on the bus to old ladies? Didn't say grace before dinner last night? Liquor on Sundays? What other kinds of immorality should exclude people from receiving welfare? Its just so hypocritical, the government should never legislate morality.
Those things aren't technically illegal. Agree with the illegality of drugs or not, the government isn't legislating morality, they're legislating legality.
I normally come to the defense of peoples rights, but in this situation I don't see this as a bad thing, I guess. Welfare is supposed to be financial support for people that aren't making enough money to get by. I don't think it's all that bad for this money to come with strings attached.
On June 10 2011 05:18 Boblhead wrote: Ever state needs to do this, who knows how many people on welfare, and and disability abuse the system, I know of a lady that has 8 kids, and is fit to work, but she just abuses the system and the state pays for everything. I know that she partakes in illegal drug use as well. I know arizona the "Controversal state" was thinking about doing this, and let me tell you I'm 100% into supporting this.
she has 8 kids and you want her to find a job? are u sick in the head? Do you have any idea how hard it is to even raise 1 child?
Who has children they can't provide for? That bitch is sick in the head, and negligent. She shouldn't be given a dime. If she is negligent, and fails to provide for them, then due process is done, the children are taken away, and she's put in prison.
On June 10 2011 05:18 Boblhead wrote: Ever state needs to do this, who knows how many people on welfare, and and disability abuse the system, I know of a lady that has 8 kids, and is fit to work, but she just abuses the system and the state pays for everything. I know that she partakes in illegal drug use as well. I know arizona the "Controversal state" was thinking about doing this, and let me tell you I'm 100% into supporting this.
she has 8 kids and you want her to find a job? are u sick in the head? Do you have any idea how hard it is to even raise 1 child?
So let me get this straight. She's on drugs, and you think she's actually raising those 8 kids? Bet you anything if we took a trip to her house it would smell like cat piss and cigarettes, and the children would be malnourished, spending all of their time at a friend's house because they're afraid to go home and be anywhere near one of mom's boyfriends.
On June 10 2011 07:29 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: I personally feel this is a great idea.
It only hurts people who are on drugs breaking the law already. They should drug test people by monthly and create more government jobs. Having people go around and collect these drug tests to make sure everyone is staying clean. If you are working for your own money and want to do drugs go for it I don't care but if your using the system and tax payers money GTFO...
Actually, it hurts the taxpayer, because if you read the article you would know the drug tests are paid for by EVERYONE on welfare, and the cost is paid back to them by the welfare office if they are clean.
So instead of paying for drug addicts maybe (since knowing someone uses drugs doesn't actually tell you anything about what they spend their money on), you are guaranteed to pay for many expensive frivolous drug tests.
Anyone who jumps on board of "Fuck u, drug users, im not paying!" is just spewing propaganda without actually thinking about how the world works. This arrangement will cost the state more money than just paying people who may or may not be taking drugs, but qualified for assistance based on their finances - for which the amount of money they receive is already based on their bills and expenses, which have to be proven to the welfare office with receipts and records of payment - meaning they don't really have money for drugs anyways unless they lied about their rent.
This legislation is basically saying everyone on welfare is guility of fraud, and they must submit to an expensive drug test to prove their innocence.
So before you go FUCK YEAH, AMERICA, WE BEAT THE DRUG USERS, actually think about the mechanics of the situation, and who will be paying for it.
I understand what your getting at with the costs of the drug tests, Though if you can stop someone who is going to be on wellfare for 10, 20+ years in the long run we would be saving money. How many people have been leeching on the system for years and years. If you have to get drug tested to get a job you should have to get drug tested to be on welfare.
On June 10 2011 07:35 jello_biafra wrote: I see many people saying that it's fine to buy drugs with your own money but not with money given to you by the government, the government wastes billions each year on the war on drugs, does spending a small amount more of government money on drugs really make a difference?
That's kind of like saying the U.S. spends trillions on the wars in the middle east, does spending a small amount more on funding insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan really make a difference? If you decided to wage war then why would you want to use any money to fund your enemy?
If the government is going to give out free money then it's well within the rights of the constitution to ask for all applicant to submitt for a drug test. It's just another criteria to get welfare. Rich people don't get welfare because they don't meet the requirement meants. Neither will drug addicts.
Anyways, all you have to do is pee in a cup. It's not like people are fondeling your package or molesting you.
On June 10 2011 05:18 Boblhead wrote: Ever state needs to do this, who knows how many people on welfare, and and disability abuse the system, I know of a lady that has 8 kids, and is fit to work, but she just abuses the system and the state pays for everything. I know that she partakes in illegal drug use as well. I know arizona the "Controversal state" was thinking about doing this, and let me tell you I'm 100% into supporting this.
she has 8 kids and you want her to find a job? are u sick in the head? Do you have any idea how hard it is to even raise 1 child?
So let me get this straight. She's on drugs, and you think she's actually raising those 8 kids? Bet you anything if we took a trip to her house it would smell like cat piss and cigarettes, and the children would be malnourished, spending all of their time at a friend's house because they're afraid to go home and be anywhere near one of mom's boyfriends.
ah, ye. lets stereotype all those welfare recipients. ye man. Those fucking poor people. They're all the same. Lazy as hell and don't do anything. just think of the horrors this person has done. I don't know anything about except besides the fact that shes poor but I can make these huge sweeping generalizations.
On June 10 2011 05:18 Boblhead wrote: Ever state needs to do this, who knows how many people on welfare, and and disability abuse the system, I know of a lady that has 8 kids, and is fit to work, but she just abuses the system and the state pays for everything. I know that she partakes in illegal drug use as well. I know arizona the "Controversal state" was thinking about doing this, and let me tell you I'm 100% into supporting this.
she has 8 kids and you want her to find a job? are u sick in the head? Do you have any idea how hard it is to even raise 1 child?
Who has children they can't provide for? That bitch is sick in the head, and negligent. She shouldn't be given a dime. If she is negligent, and fails to provide for them, then due process is done, the children are taken away, and she's put in prison.
Reminds me of the UK family that had like 8 children, both parents quit their jobs and they were receiving enough benefit money for a large house, car, big TV, cable, broadband, loads of food etc. and they were complaining that they didn't have enough money for a holiday and were demanding more from the government -_-
This country seems like the opposite of Florida, the crazy "chavs/jakes/neds" or w/e you want to call them can come into the job centre clearly drunk and make a big scene and be out with their money within 10 minutes when regular people who are just between jobs actually have to wait their turn. I still disagree with Florida's decision though, there has to be a middle ground.
On June 10 2011 07:35 jello_biafra wrote: I see many people saying that it's fine to buy drugs with your own money but not with money given to you by the government, the government wastes billions each year on the war on drugs, does spending a small amount more of government money on drugs really make a difference?
That's kind of like saying the U.S. spends trillions on the wars in the middle east, does spending a small amount more on funding insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan really make a difference? If you decided to wage war then why would you want to use any money to fund your enemy?
You're right it is kind of like saying that but the situations are totally different. Billions are spent trying to stop drugs from reaching the country but huge amounts get in regardless. The addict is gonna get his fix whether it's with his welfare money or the money of the guy he just robbed, either way the money is going back into the economy, the drugs will continue to flow and essentially nothing was achieved by the governments "war" and an alternate system would render the entire unpleasant scenario unnecessary . In the other you're actually providing logistical, technological etc. support to an enemy in an actual combat situation which will actively harm your efforts in a situation where the only alternative is to let a nation be oppressed and become the world centre for terrorists again.
On June 10 2011 07:25 DamnCats wrote: I like how if you're on welfare you can be as much of alcoholic as you want. Basically the worst drug ever. WTG florida.
absolutely. alcohol abuse will rise massively.
to the guy who said we should add alcohol? go ahead and add internet useage time, and unhealthy food, and leisure outings, and magazines, and fancy clothes, or whatever you want to know the money is being spent helpfully...
On June 10 2011 05:18 Boblhead wrote: Ever state needs to do this, who knows how many people on welfare, and and disability abuse the system, I know of a lady that has 8 kids, and is fit to work, but she just abuses the system and the state pays for everything. I know that she partakes in illegal drug use as well. I know arizona the "Controversal state" was thinking about doing this, and let me tell you I'm 100% into supporting this.
she has 8 kids and you want her to find a job? are u sick in the head? Do you have any idea how hard it is to even raise 1 child?
So let me get this straight. She's on drugs, and you think she's actually raising those 8 kids? Bet you anything if we took a trip to her house it would smell like cat piss and cigarettes, and the children would be malnourished, spending all of their time at a friend's house because they're afraid to go home and be anywhere near one of mom's boyfriends.
ah, ye. lets stereotype all those welfare recipients. ye man. Those fucking poor people. They're all the same. Lazy as hell and don't do anything. just think of the horrors this person has done. I don't know anything about except besides the fact that shes poor but I can make these huge sweeping generalizations.
I grew up near a section 8 neighborhood. I've never been in a welfare home that didn't fit my stereotype. And I've been in a lot of welfare homes. How about you?
I find it hilarious that so many Americans are cheering for this, this is a blatant foot on the constitution, if this does not get overruled i will be shocked. Looking forward to them explaining why they should search everyone in need for drugs "just because". That argument is going to be a hoot.
And they say the Democrats are "ruining the constitution" at their healthcare rally's, ha.
Actually, it hurts the taxpayer, because if you read the article you would know the drug tests are paid for by EVERYONE on welfare, and the cost is paid back to them by the welfare office if they are clean.
So instead of paying for drug addicts maybe (since knowing someone uses drugs doesn't actually tell you anything about what they spend their money on), you are guaranteed to pay for many expensive frivolous drug tests.
Anyone who jumps on board of "Fuck u, drug users, im not paying!" is just spewing propaganda without actually thinking about how the world works. This arrangement will cost the state more money than just paying people who may or may not be taking drugs, but qualified for assistance based on their finances - for which the amount of money they receive is already based on their bills and expenses, which have to be proven to the welfare office with receipts and records of payment - meaning they don't really have money for drugs anyways unless they lied about their rent.
This legislation is basically saying everyone on welfare is guility of fraud, and they must submit to an expensive drug test to prove their innocence.
So before you go FUCK YEAH, AMERICA, WE BEAT THE DRUG USERS, actually think about the mechanics of the situation, and who will be paying for it.
You fail to take into account all the money that won't be wasted by giving drug abusers welfare, which is quite possibly a large sum of money. Then the consequence of less drug users having the money to buy drugs is there are less drugs being bought. If that's the case then there is less money needed to fight this "war on drugs" and thus more money saved.
Now no one here has actual figures to prove which will be more cost effective, however, you should get off your high horse as if you've really taken to account all possible situations and know the best course of action.
In principle, this new policy seems like a great idea.
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
Yeah. Because weed is going to keep them and their kids fed, right? I never thought of that!
On June 10 2011 05:18 Boblhead wrote: Ever state needs to do this, who knows how many people on welfare, and and disability abuse the system, I know of a lady that has 8 kids, and is fit to work, but she just abuses the system and the state pays for everything. I know that she partakes in illegal drug use as well. I know arizona the "Controversal state" was thinking about doing this, and let me tell you I'm 100% into supporting this.
she has 8 kids and you want her to find a job? are u sick in the head? Do you have any idea how hard it is to even raise 1 child?
So let me get this straight. She's on drugs, and you think she's actually raising those 8 kids? Bet you anything if we took a trip to her house it would smell like cat piss and cigarettes, and the children would be malnourished, spending all of their time at a friend's house because they're afraid to go home and be anywhere near one of mom's boyfriends.
ah, ye. lets stereotype all those welfare recipients. ye man. Those fucking poor people. They're all the same. Lazy as hell and don't do anything. just think of the horrors this person has done. I don't know anything about except besides the fact that shes poor but I can make these huge sweeping generalizations.
I grew up near a section 8 neighborhood. I've never been in a welfare home that didn't fit my stereotype. And I've been in a lot of welfare homes. How about you?
Great news, your anecdotal evidence is now the law of the land, bless you and your heightened sense of stereotyping!
On June 10 2011 07:25 DamnCats wrote: I like how if you're on welfare you can be as much of alcoholic as you want. Basically the worst drug ever. WTG florida.
absolutely. alcohol abuse will rise massively.
to the guy who said we should add alcohol? go ahead and add internet useage time, and unhealthy food, and leisure outings, and magazines, and fancy clothes, or whatever you want to know the money is being spent helpfully...
No need to create so many bureaucracies, I'd rather just get rid of the welfare altogether. I can help the poor people in my community better than a massive centralized government can, and make sure none of the money goes to waste.
On June 10 2011 05:18 Boblhead wrote: Ever state needs to do this, who knows how many people on welfare, and and disability abuse the system, I know of a lady that has 8 kids, and is fit to work, but she just abuses the system and the state pays for everything. I know that she partakes in illegal drug use as well. I know arizona the "Controversal state" was thinking about doing this, and let me tell you I'm 100% into supporting this.
she has 8 kids and you want her to find a job? are u sick in the head? Do you have any idea how hard it is to even raise 1 child?
So let me get this straight. She's on drugs, and you think she's actually raising those 8 kids? Bet you anything if we took a trip to her house it would smell like cat piss and cigarettes, and the children would be malnourished, spending all of their time at a friend's house because they're afraid to go home and be anywhere near one of mom's boyfriends.
ah, ye. lets stereotype all those welfare recipients. ye man. Those fucking poor people. They're all the same. Lazy as hell and don't do anything. just think of the horrors this person has done. I don't know anything about except besides the fact that shes poor but I can make these huge sweeping generalizations.
I grew up near a section 8 neighborhood. I've never been in a welfare home that didn't fit my stereotype. And I've been in a lot of welfare homes. How about you?
Great news, your anecdotal evidence is now the law of the land, bless you and your heightened sense of stereotyping!
Even the UN says the war on drugs failed and what does Florida do? They step up their game and criminalize people even more.
And now scream a bit about those "lazy drug addicted welfare bastards" without acknowledging that there are not even enough jobs for people to work on. Brave new world...
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.
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.
It's cool of you to post when you have no clue what you are talking about. You absolutely could go clean, take the test, and then get back on pot. Even the biggest pothead in the world will get clean in a month with some exercise if they aren't fat. Depending on circumstances it could happen even quicker. You also could simply drink something that cleans out your system the night before the pee test, take the test, and pass... so you wouldn't even have to stop smoking pot.
And the military doesn't do hair tests, except maybe in some very very very special jobs.
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
Yeah. Because weed is going to keep them and their kids fed, right? I never thought of that!
Nice straw man. Are you supposed to be refuting what I am saying?
The people will spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on.
On June 10 2011 07:54 Bunnypanda wrote: I find it hilarious that so many Americans are cheering for this, this is a blatant foot on the constitution, if this does not get overruled i will be shocked. Looking forward to them explaining why they should search everyone in need for drugs "just because". That argument is going to be a hoot.
And they say the Democrats are "ruining the constitution" at their healthcare rally's, ha.
The drug test is voluntary, there is no violation to the 4th amendment.
On one hand, it's easy (and logical) to go "Hey, it's our money, you shouldn't be spending it on drugs.". On the other hand, it's infinitely harder to go up to a single mom who has two children and tell her she's homeless next month because she's using drugs to cope with her situation.
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
Yeah. Because weed is going to keep them and their kids fed, right? I never thought of that!
Nice straw man. Are you supposed to be refuting what I am saying?
The people will spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on.
You get like $200 a month, and you have to have a child/children to be on welfare. Good luck keeping yourself and your kid(s) fed, and still have money left to buy pot! lol
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
People might be more inclined to agree with you if weed were legal (even if it should be, it currently isn't), and if weed was the only thing they were testing for.
The government does have a legitimate interest in ensuring that welfare dollars are spent on the things they were intended for.
I like the idea but how do you carry it out? Are cigarettes and alcohol checked? Some one earlier mentioned bad food, Internet time etc.
Stop saying it's even close to related criminalization dammit. If you want FREE MONEY they can out w/e restrictions they want on it it's not like your working for it. People act so entitled with welfare now its ridiculous. It should be a privilege not a right imo.
It's more complicated than you would think when you stop and think...
On June 10 2011 08:03 Light`iu wrote: Fact: Weed is not the only illegal drug in the United States.
Then is it possible that this isn't only about weed, guys? Oh my goodness...I never would have thought.
Point: Stop talking as if circumventing positive tests for weed is the issue at hand.
Uh...I don't know what country you think you're talking about, but weed IS the only illegal drug in the entire world. Please get your facts straight. There exist no other illegal drugs besides weed, Heroin and cocaine are only in the movies. They do not exist.
They should enact this for first signup and then do random tests 4x a year, otherwise the druggies will just use whatever method they have to get a clean result since they know when the tests are.
On top if this they should make everyone they give welfare to bring in receipts for all expenses for the previous month. Discrepancies = automatic drug test and audit and counseling.
Failing a drug test should get them assigned to rehab clinic instead of just cancelling support.
Personally I would take the hard road and just cut them off since its proven the money is just used to buy drugs. Since the easy money is gone they have 2 choices 1. get a job and go legit or 2. get money criminally, eventually get caught and put where they can't get drugs easily or harm anyone.
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
Is this a joke?? Weed and other drugs theyre testing for are illegal. The federal government is giving out the money, they should be allowed to restrict their handouts to people who actually follow their laws. People who have illegal drugs would normally be put in jail, let alone refused welfare checks.
I mean seriously now, ordinary citizens are not allowed under US law to buy weed with their own money. Why should people on welfare be given an exception?
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.
Well to be fair the Constitution doesn't really allow for taxpayers money to be given out to people.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison aka the father of the constitution.
On June 10 2011 08:03 Light`iu wrote: Fact: Weed is not the only illegal drug in the United States.
Then is it possible that this isn't only about weed, guys? Oh my goodness...I never would have thought.
Point: Stop talking as if circumventing positive tests for weed is the issue at hand.
Uh...I don't know what country you think you're talking about, but weed IS the only illegal drug in the entire world. Please get your facts straight. There exist no other illegal drugs besides weed, Heroin and cocaine are only in the movies. They do not exist.
Honestly, they should just manage the money for the welfare recipients. Give them food and board. You know, since that's what the welfare checks are supposed to be used for in the first place. Problem solved.
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.
Well to be fair the Constitution doesn't really allow for taxpayers money to be given out to people.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison aka the father of the constitution.
You're right. Let's force schools to advertise to your children so that they can give them an education, since that's a benevolent object that comes out of money taken from the people.
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
Yeah. Because weed is going to keep them and their kids fed, right? I never thought of that!
Nice straw man. Are you supposed to be refuting what I am saying?
The people will spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on.
You get like $200 a month, and you have to have a child/children to be on welfare. Good luck keeping yourself and your kid(s) fed, and still have money left to buy pot! lol
I am saying that if somebody is going to spend their money on weed rather than feeding their kids, then it has to do with them being a selfish asshole, rather than them being a pot smoker.
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
People might be more inclined to agree with you if weed were legal (even if it should be, it currently isn't), and if weed was the only thing they were testing for.
The government does have a legitimate interest in ensuring that welfare dollars are spent on the things they were intended for.
yes but welfare has nothing to do with law enforcement. and it's entirely possible for somebody to spend welfare money on food or bills and smoke weed with their friends or have a pot plant in their house. they are singling something out that isn't even necessarily related to where people are spending their money.
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
Yeah. Because weed is going to keep them and their kids fed, right? I never thought of that!
Nice straw man. Are you supposed to be refuting what I am saying?
The people will spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on.
You get like $200 a month, and you have to have a child/children to be on welfare.
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
Yeah. Because weed is going to keep them and their kids fed, right? I never thought of that!
Nice straw man. Are you supposed to be refuting what I am saying?
The people will spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on.
You get like $200 a month, and you have to have a child/children to be on welfare.
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
Is this a joke?? Weed and other drugs theyre testing for are illegal. The federal government is giving out the money, they should be allowed to restrict their handouts to people who actually follow their laws. People who have illegal drugs would normally be put in jail, let alone refused welfare checks.
no.. it's not a joke. many of you seem to think that because they are getting welfare it's justifiable for them to be drug tested. I disagree with this as I don't see the connection between getting welfare and smoking weed. More addictive drugs I'd actually agree with the policy but weed can be used recreationally.
I mean seriously now, ordinary citizens are not allowed under US law to buy weed with their own money. Why should people on welfare be given an exception?
It's illegal regardless of whether or not they are drug tested, there would be no exception..
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
I'm a pretty liberal person generally but I simply don't agree with this.
Welfare money is pretty much a pure drain on the country in terms of money. If these people are collecting this money from everyone's tax dollars I would really appreciate it if they didn't spend it on getting high.
If they use it to pay rent, get food, and otherwise try to make their lives better so they can get out of welfare? Great....however if they just stay on welfare because it's free money and buy drugs with it all day, that's really not okay..
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
Yeah. Because weed is going to keep them and their kids fed, right? I never thought of that!
Nice straw man. Are you supposed to be refuting what I am saying?
The people will spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on.
You get like $200 a month, and you have to have a child/children to be on welfare.
Really?
Yeah. Welfare =! Social Security or Disability.
Oh I see, I thought that it just meant "benefits" as they're all called here.
On June 10 2011 07:07 shinosai wrote: You're not forced to do something if you could choose to do otherwise. Got murdered? You didn't have much of a choice on the dying part, I'd say it was forced. Decided to fill out a welfare application.... doesn't sound forced to me unless there's someone holding a gun to your head.
How about cancer or malnutrition? People die from things that they cannot choose to avoid all the time. Or, on the other end, armed robbery, where you get to "choose" between your life or your wallet.
I suppose people could forgo welfare checks and, I don't know, get denied medical care and other things most would consider basic human rights in a first world country. But it's bizarre that you're saying that people aren't forced to sign up for welfare because "no one is holding a gun to their head" when, in many cases, they do.
On June 10 2011 07:09 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Did you know that context is integral to the English language?
Probably. But I still don't understand why "forced" is necessarily limited to humans and institutions in this situation. There are plenty of other reasons why someone might be "forced" into doing something other than humans or institutions
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
Yeah. Because weed is going to keep them and their kids fed, right? I never thought of that!
Nice straw man. Are you supposed to be refuting what I am saying?
The people will spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on.
You get like $200 a month, and you have to have a child/children to be on welfare.
Really?
Yeah. Welfare =! Social Security or Disability.
Oh I see, I thought that it just meant "benefits" as they're all called here.
I'm pretty sure we're just talking about true welfare.
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
I'm a pretty liberal person generally but I simply don't agree with this.
Welfare money is pretty much a pure drain on the country in terms of money. If these people are collecting this money from everyone's tax dollars I would really appreciate it if they didn't spend it on getting high.
wtf does this even mean. what do you think happens to welfare money? that they put it away in lockboxes never to be seen again?
If they use it to pay rent, get food, and otherwise try to make their lives better so they can get out of welfare? Great....however if they just stay on welfare because it's free money and buy drugs with it all day, that's really not okay..
So you get to say what they spend their money on to be comfortable, basically? Weed doesn't fit in here but food does? Why not just give them food stamps. Do they need electricity? Why? Do they need things like ice cream? Some people like to smoke weed it's really not a big deal and it isn't exactly the most expensive thing in the world.
So many of you are going to say my argument is retarded, but it's really not. Welfare isn't meant just to keep people alive. It's very easy to do that with very very little money. It's to keep them at a certain standard of living.
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).
Then don't go on welfare. Can't have it your way and want the money as well. Testing is really not that expensive now a days. Quick litmus to look for Top 3 drugs or particulates. Then it gets sent for further testing if found. If all people were as honest as you are then there would be no need to test. Unemployment and welfare are two different entities. Unemployment is paid out of your pay check, whereas welfare is a state run organization paid by the taxes of others.
On June 10 2011 07:07 shinosai wrote: You're not forced to do something if you could choose to do otherwise. Got murdered? You didn't have much of a choice on the dying part, I'd say it was forced. Decided to fill out a welfare application.... doesn't sound forced to me unless there's someone holding a gun to your head.
How about cancer or malnutrition? People die from things that they cannot choose to avoid all the time.
I suppose people could forgo welfare checks and, I don't know, starve to death or get denied medical care or something. But it's bizarre that you're saying that people aren't forced to sign up for welfare because "no one has a gun to their head" when, in many cases, they do.
On June 10 2011 07:09 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Did you know that context is integral to the English language?
Probably. But I still don't understand why "forced" is necessarily limited to humans and institutions in this situation.
He's talking about forced by the government. If some private individual or circumstance forces you to consent to a search of your property, this is not the same thing as a government worker forcibly searching it without a warrant. He's not saying "No one has to sign up for welfare to live," he's saying "The government is not violating the Fourth Amendment because consenting to these drug tests is not mandatory."
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
I'm a pretty liberal person generally but I simply don't agree with this.
Welfare money is pretty much a pure drain on the country in terms of money. If these people are collecting this money from everyone's tax dollars I would really appreciate it if they didn't spend it on getting high.
wtf does this even mean. what do you think happens to welfare money? that they put it away in lockboxes never to be seen again?
If they use it to pay rent, get food, and otherwise try to make their lives better so they can get out of welfare? Great....however if they just stay on welfare because it's free money and buy drugs with it all day, that's really not okay..
So you get to say what they spend their money on to be comfortable, basically? Weed doesn't fit in here but food does? Why not just give them food stamps. Do they need electricity? Why? Do they need things like ice cream? Some people like to smoke weed it's really not a big deal and it isn't exactly the most expensive thing in the world.
So many of you are going to say my argument is retarded, but it's really not. Welfare isn't meant just to keep people alive. It's very easy to do that with very very little money. It's to keep them at a certain standard of living.
Weed or no weed, i'll bet sitting at home all day eating cereal and hot dogs is better than getting up every god damn morning to go into work, so you can pay for someone else to sit around and neglect their children.
IMO a great idea. This should be put into action in every state. Minimizes the chance that taxpayer money that goes towards welfare is going to be used for drugs.
On June 10 2011 08:17 Lixler wrote: He's talking about forced by the government. If some private individual or circumstance forces you to consent to a search of your property, this is not the same thing as a government worker forcibly searching it without a warrant. He's not saying "No one has to sign up for welfare to live," he's saying "The government is not violating the Fourth Amendment because consenting to these drug tests is not mandatory."
Except welfare is mandatory to many of these people; therefore, drug tests are also mandatory. Government does have to enforce certain universal human rights.
I am saying that if somebody is going to spend their money on weed rather than feeding their kids, then it has to do with them being a selfish asshole, rather than them being a pot smoker.
If the government had a "selfish asshole" test, im sure theyd do it. But as it is, the only things they can scientifically test for are illegal drugs. If the test comes up positive, they KNOW that the guy is spending money on things other than food for their families, aka they are a selfish asshole. Thats the closest you can get to a scientific selfish asshole test.
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote:
yes but welfare has nothing to do with law enforcement. and it's entirely possible for somebody to spend welfare money on food or bills and smoke weed with their friends or have a pot plant in their house. they are singling something out that isn't even necessarily related to where people are spending their money.
its not about law enforcement. its about letting the program do the job its intended to do. welfare is for people who are currently in a rut but who also intend on getting back on their feet. as it is, weed is considered to be harmful enough to be illegal. the government sees this as being detrimental to helping someone get back up and running, so they restrict their welfare checks. how is this wrong?
if the government changed their minds and considered weed to be harmless enough to be legal, then of course i wouldnt have a problem with people spending their welfare checks on an occasional blunt to relieve the stress. (i dont consider my opinion on whether or not weed should be legal to be relevant here)
On June 10 2011 08:11 travis wrote: no.. it's not a joke. many of you seem to think that because they are getting welfare it's justifiable for them to be drug tested. I disagree with this as I don't see the connection between getting welfare and smoking weed. More addictive drugs I'd actually agree with the policy but weed can be used recreationally.
Well, if weed became legal then its w/e for me. Im just looking at this logically in terms of the law. Since weed is currently an illegal drug, why shouldnt the government be allowed to test for drugs before handing out the money?
Also, I still think given the nature and purpose of welfare and it being the taxpayers'/government's money and all that they have the right to choose who they give the money to. They already restrict people on the much less illegal criteria of income levels, so why cant they restrict welfare checks to people who dont commit crimes?
On June 10 2011 08:11 travis wrote: It's illegal regardless of whether or not they are drug tested, there would be no exception..
So youre saying hand out the money now, let them maybe get arrested later for wasting taxpayer dollars on drugs? Thats completely irresponsible. With the drug tests, you can prevent the waste of a welfare check on a drug addict, prevent further purchases and usage of drugs by giving the druggies less income, and actually give the money to a good family.
in what way is just giving them the money a good thing? what are you arguing? privacy?
On June 10 2011 08:21 Supamang wrote: With the drug tests, you can prevent the waste of a welfare check on a drug addict, prevent further purchases and usage of drugs by giving the druggies less income, and actually give the money to a good family.
Except that you'd have to indiscriminately test everyone else apart from the druggies in question...unless you've come up with a way to only test drug users. This sounds an awful lot like a waste of money.
Plus you'd have to house and support the caught drug users in jail for doing illegal stuff...or, at the very least, assign officers to watch them on probation. Which definitely costs more than a welfare check.
compare a guy on benefit who smokes weed to a guy who uses the same money to drink every day to a guy who uses the same money to eat fast food every day to a guy who uses the money to go clubbing once a week to a guy who uses the money to maintain his golf club membership to a guy who uses the money to buy a new computer to a guy who uses the money to date women and buy them gifts to a guy who uses the money to buy a car rather than a bus pass to a guy who uses the money to rent movies and go to the cinema
wellfare money is spent however the person sees fit - if not on health and fitness then on whatever luxury that person wants. if a person is going to be irresponsible with something, it can be with weed or alcohol or food or trinkets or whores or gambling or clothes or fine dining or any other thing that a person can do with money (and there are a lot more things than those, i just suck at listing them)
as for hard drugs (tnx for the pm), idk, maybe it will be an incentive to get people off of them, or maybe it will cause a lot of hard drug users to get even deeper into crime when they have to fraud, or when they find themselves with no government support whatsoever and start mugging people.
with regards to hard drug users, look at it this way: maybe it will help some, maybe it will fuck some up even worse (seems more likely dont you think, realistically?). on the whole, does this make it a good policy or a "not quite so sure about this one" policy?
On June 10 2011 08:21 Supamang wrote: With the drug tests, you can prevent the waste of a welfare check on a drug addict, prevent further purchases and usage of drugs by giving the druggies less income, and actually give the money to a good family.
Except that you'd have to indiscriminately test everyone else apart from the druggies in question...unless you've come up with a way to only test drug users. This sounds an awful lot like a waste of money.
Plus you'd have to house and support drug users in jail for doing illegal stuff...or, at the very least, assign officers to watch them. Which definitely costs more than a welfare check.
I didn't read anything in there that they were going to prosecute people who failed the test.
On June 10 2011 08:25 FFGenerations wrote: compare a guy on benefit who smokes weed to a guy who uses the same money to drink every day to a guy who uses the same money to eat fast food every day to a guy who uses the money to go clubbing once a week to a guy who uses the money to maintain his golf club membership to a guy who uses the money to buy a new computer to a guy who uses the money to date women and buy them gifts to a guy who uses the money to buy a car rather than a bus pass to a guy who uses the money to rent movies and go to the cinema
wellfare money is spent however the person sees fit - if not on health and fitness then on whatever luxury that person wants. if a person is going to be irresponsible with something, it can be with weed or alcohol or food or trinkets or whores or gambling or clothes or fine dining or any other thing that a person can do with money (and there are a lot more things than those, i just suck at listing them)
first of all, whats wrong with eating fast food every day? thats like the cheapest food around. id rather them eat fast food while they fix their life up instead of spending welfare checks on 5 star restaurants.
second, you cant test for clubbing, computers, sex, or whatnot (and lol, good luck saving enough welfare checks for buy a car). you can test for drugs
third, its the governments money, they get to choose who it goes to. whats wrong with that?
On June 10 2011 08:25 RoosterSamurai wrote: I didn't read anything in there that they were going to prosecute people who failed the test.
It's legal to use cocaine, marijuana, and meth in Florida?
Of course it is. But denying them welfare because they failed a drug test isn't the same as arresting them on the spot. Nobody is getting arrested. They just don't get the welfare money.
Many people who abuse drugs can't simply just say "aww I won't get welfare if I'm doing cocaine. I guess I'll just have to stop suddenly." I don't think this will work in all the ways they anticipated.
'Our national drug is alcohol. We tend to regard the use of any other drug with special horror, and the addict deserving of the destruction of their minds and bodies'
(paraphrased from memory from William Burroughs)
EDIT:
On June 10 2011 08:28 Grobyc wrote: Many people who abuse drugs can't simply just say "aww I won't get welfare if I'm doing cocaine. I guess I'll just have to stop suddenly." I don't think this will work in all the ways they anticipated.
On June 10 2011 08:27 RoosterSamurai wrote: Of course it is. But denying them welfare because they failed a drug test isn't the same as arresting them on the spot. Nobody is getting arrested. They just don't get the welfare money.
Why wouldn't they get arrested? I'm pretty sure that possession and use of illegal drugs is worth at least six months in jail over there. It certainly is so over here.
Or does the law work differently for welfare users? Are the police going to ignore failed drug tests?
On June 10 2011 08:27 RoosterSamurai wrote: Of course it is. But denying them welfare because they failed a drug test isn't the same as arresting them on the spot. Nobody is getting arrested. They just don't get the welfare money.
Why wouldn't they get arrested? I'm pretty sure that possession and use of drugs is worth at least six months in jail over there.
Or does the law work differently for welfare users?
I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the answer to that question.
On June 10 2011 08:07 travis wrote:yes but welfare has nothing to do with law enforcement.
The proposed measure is not law enforcement. People who fail the voluntary drug tests aren't penalized.
On June 10 2011 08:07 travis wrote:and it's entirely possible for somebody to spend welfare money on food or bills and smoke weed with their friends or have a pot plant in their house. they are singling something out that isn't even necessarily related to where people are spending their money.
That doesn't make it wrong, merely the first step in the right direction. Would you have a problem with the government handing out Safeway gift cards instead of welfare money? If so, why? Do you think people are entitled to recreational money from the government when the purpose of welfare (as determined by voters, directly/indirectly) is for food and shelter?
Your argument boils down to something like: "People can already download movies illegaly. That means it is wrong for schools to prevent their students from using their school-provided internet to download music."
You don't have a right to free recreational money. We as a country have decided you have a right to food, shelter, and other basic needs if you can't get those things, and have agreed to pay for this, but we've never agreed that people have a right to weed (or crack, or heroin, etc.) money. Therefore, it is in the government's interest to ensure that the money we give you is used for the things they were intended for.
On June 10 2011 08:30 RoosterSamurai wrote: I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the answer to that question.
Yeah, it doesn't. The law applies to everyone equally, per the Constitution. This includes welfare users. If the police was deliberately ignoring a huge database of evidence, that would be terrible precedent. Even if the alternative involves costing the state a fuckton more money in its effort to...save money.
It's fairly easy to use other, less-traceable drugs around the time when a test is taken. For instance, if someone is smoking weed every day and wants to take a tolerance break for a month or so (will help them get higher using less weed anyway) and just use other drugs on the side like LSD or mushrooms which will be out of said persons system within days. Even meth won't be detected after a long weekend.
And if they really wanted to get sneaky, people can also use things like DXM which can be written off as just having some cold medicine (unless you trip a lot, because you'll start testing positive for opiates) or n2o (good luck testing for that lol). The best part about those two is that they are legal and can be picked up at any supermarket (or order crates of n2o to your house legally, much more neat)
On June 10 2011 08:32 acker wrote:Yeah, it doesn't. The law applies to everyone equally, per the Constitution. This includes welfare users. If the police was deliberately ignoring a huge database of evidence, that would be terrible precedent.
There's already existing precedents for this kind of stuff, such as how police do not use educational and medical databases to go after illegal immigrants. It would be really, really easy to compare K-12 educational databases to registered citizens/legal imimigrants and identify whole families.
The idea is that certain things are not admissible as evidence in court.
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote: This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
I'm a pretty liberal person generally but I simply don't agree with this.
Welfare money is pretty much a pure drain on the country in terms of money. If these people are collecting this money from everyone's tax dollars I would really appreciate it if they didn't spend it on getting high.
wtf does this even mean. what do you think happens to welfare money? that they put it away in lockboxes never to be seen again?
If they use it to pay rent, get food, and otherwise try to make their lives better so they can get out of welfare? Great....however if they just stay on welfare because it's free money and buy drugs with it all day, that's really not okay..
So you get to say what they spend their money on to be comfortable, basically? Weed doesn't fit in here but food does? Why not just give them food stamps. Do they need electricity? Why? Do they need things like ice cream? Some people like to smoke weed it's really not a big deal and it isn't exactly the most expensive thing in the world.
So many of you are going to say my argument is retarded, but it's really not. Welfare isn't meant just to keep people alive. It's very easy to do that with very very little money. It's to keep them at a certain standard of living.
Actually your argument is retarded... Anyways, I don't think smoking weed is a part of that "certain standard of living." Why don't people give money to hobos on the street? It's mainly because they're worried the hobos will go spend it on drugs and alcohol rather than food, shelter, clothes, etc. In a similar way, it's completely reasonable to be worried about how welfare recipients spend their checks; why should they spend "carelessly" what they receive from other people? If you're so OK with ppl doing w/e they want, then why don't you give money out to hobos and tell them it's okay to use it on drugs and alcohol?
On a side note, I don't really get why people are always screaming about their freedoms. There simply has to be limitations as society becomes more complex (i.e. development of internet). Rules are almost always beneficial to the great majority.
On June 10 2011 08:33 Valentine wrote: Didn't read much of this thread, but just saying:
It's fairly easy to use other, less-traceable drugs around the time when a test is taken. For instance, if someone is smoking weed every day and wants to take a tolerance break for a month or so (will help them get higher using less weed anyway) and just use other drugs on the side like LSD or mushrooms which will be out of said persons system within days. Even meth won't be detected after a long weekend.
And if they really wanted to get sneaky, people can also use things like DXM which can be written off as just having some cold medicine (unless you trip a lot, because you'll start testing positive for opiates) or n2o (good luck testing for that lol). The best part about those two is that they are legal and can be picked up at any supermarket (or order crates of n2o to your house legally, much more neat)
Just sayin'
exactly. drug tests are ridiculously easy to get around. Most people who has to go through this will just continue using drugs but find ways to beat the drug test.
It's an inconvenience for them, and money thrown away for the government
On June 10 2011 07:54 Bunnypanda wrote: I find it hilarious that so many Americans are cheering for this, this is a blatant foot on the constitution, if this does not get overruled i will be shocked. Looking forward to them explaining why they should search everyone in need for drugs "just because". That argument is going to be a hoot.
And they say the Democrats are "ruining the constitution" at their healthcare rally's, ha.
if you lent a friend some money specifically for one thing he desperately needed and then he goes and buys some crack with it wouldn't you be inclined either to not lend him money anymore or at least know that he's not going to buy crack again?
and that's a friendship. the government isn't anyone's friend
I've known a few people who got into hard drugs and then just leeched off the welfare system to support their habit. Giving those people money only hurts them more.
I'm really confused why this is even a debate. Using the kind of drugs they are testing for is illegal. People who do illegal things are tried and sent to jail. Nobody has a problem with this. Why, then, do people think it is a good idea to give these same people tax dollars?
I feel like it is a choice. If you feel like you want to do drugs, fine. More power to you, that's your life. However, it is against the law. You can't pick and chose which laws you want to have and which you want to break. You can't chose to go against the government on drugs and then go crying to the government for money. Just not how it works.
i edited my post, and grobyc also said this at the same time:
as for hard drugs (tnx for the pm), idk, maybe it will be an incentive to get people off of them, or maybe it will cause a lot of hard drug users to get even deeper into crime when they have to fraud, or when they find themselves with no government support whatsoever and start mugging people.
with regards to hard drug users, look at it this way: maybe it will help some, maybe it will fuck some up even worse (seems more likely dont you think, realistically?). on the whole, does this make it a good policy or a "not quite so sure about this one" policy?
Supamang, its the governments money, but they dont get to choose who it goes to...that is what we're discussing right now!
as for fast food, its expensive here, regardless you sound like you're trolling because you picked that one little thing that didnt fit in with the rest of my post. maybe you were just randomly commenting on it.
yes you can test for drugs, you CAN do it, that doesnt mean you should.... seriously trolling?
This is not a guilty before proven innocent thing at all...
It should be a requirement for people to get drug tested before getting anything from the government. I am surprised they didn't have this to begin with. So much money being wasted buying drugs.
On June 10 2011 07:54 Bunnypanda wrote: I find it hilarious that so many Americans are cheering for this, this is a blatant foot on the constitution, if this does not get overruled i will be shocked. Looking forward to them explaining why they should search everyone in need for drugs "just because". That argument is going to be a hoot.
And they say the Democrats are "ruining the constitution" at their healthcare rally's, ha.
if you lent a friend some money specifically for one thing he desperately needed and then he goes and buys some crack with it wouldn't you be inclined either to not lend him money anymore or at least know that he's not going to buy crack again?
and that's a friendship. the government isn't anyone's friend
just because someone won't spend money on drugs doesn't mean he won't spend money on something else that's recreational.
That problem is a flaw in the welfare system, and targeting drug users is just an ineffective bandaid fix.
On June 10 2011 07:54 Bunnypanda wrote: I find it hilarious that so many Americans are cheering for this, this is a blatant foot on the constitution, if this does not get overruled i will be shocked. Looking forward to them explaining why they should search everyone in need for drugs "just because". That argument is going to be a hoot.
And they say the Democrats are "ruining the constitution" at their healthcare rally's, ha.
if you lent a friend some money specifically for one thing he desperately needed and then he goes and buys some crack with it wouldn't you be inclined either to not lend him money anymore or at least know that he's not going to buy crack again?
and that's a friendship. the government isn't anyone's friend
if your friend spent half of it on paying his rent so he didnt made homeless and have to mug an old lady, but the other half on crack or on a new tv?
Not sure how I stand on the issue entirely myself yet, but one thing I am sure of is that this will not be deemed in violation of the 4th amendment. This will be considered an "administrative search" which is:
an inspection or search carried out under a regulatory or statutory scheme esp. in public or commercial premises and usu. to enforce compliance with regulations or laws pertaining to health, safety, or security
One of the aspects of administrative searches as described in People v. Madison 1988 is that it cannot be used as a pretext for searching for criminal evidence. Therefore, no one who happens to fail their test will be brought up on charges. And since they are screening TANF applicants specifically , where the money is given to be mainly in support of the children, not the parent, they provide for the disbursement of money to someone else to be sure the children still have their needs taken care of.
Consent for this search will either be considered implied (if it is well publicized and there is a way to know of it before it begins), or there will be a consent form as part of the application (which is far more likely).
. . . Having thought more about it now, I think I see this a generally a good implementation of what could be a very bad policy.
On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote: the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes
Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_-
Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument?
While this may seem like a common sense issue, it's against the constitution. ((4th amendment specifically))
Now, if they were to add a rider that said we will drug test only those who have prior drug related convictions, that would be legal. I don't understand why they don't just do that if they're so worried about it.
On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote: the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes
Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_-
Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument?
do you see the flaw in yours?
using drugs != the mafia.
one is a victimless crime, the other is a criminal organization..
On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote: the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes
Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_-
Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument?
On June 10 2011 08:32 acker wrote:Yeah, it doesn't. The law applies to everyone equally, per the Constitution. This includes welfare users. If the police was deliberately ignoring a huge database of evidence, that would be terrible precedent.
There's already existing precedents for this kind of stuff, such as how police do not use educational and medical databases to go after illegal immigrants. It would be really, really easy to compare K-12 educational databases to registered citizens/legal imimigrants and identify whole families.
The idea is that certain things are not admissible as evidence in court.
Actually, police can and do use education databases to go after illegal immigrants, they can subpoena education records in illegal immigration cases. Medical records are off-limits due to doctor-patient confidentiality. As far as I can tell, the same isn't true for welfare.
On June 10 2011 08:45 sunprince wrote:
Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_-
Actually, we re-legalized a certain drug and two-thirds of organized crime vanished in a decade.
I think this is a good move. The welfare system has it's ups and downs; for example, here, you can't have a licensed vehicle and apply for food stamps. The government will tell you that you can sell your car to get food, and you won't qualify. On the other hand, I often get jealous when I see some fat mama on food stamps with a shopping cart full of name brand Doritos, name brand Mountain Dew, all expensive food, whatever she wants, and my tax dollars are paying for it. Bitch you should be restricted to generic only, and no junk food.
On June 10 2011 08:47 nttea wrote: Why stop at drug testing? how about we just demand that they work for the welfare; we could build pyramids. Kinda like the ones in egypt.
People actually working for the money they get? Thats crazy talk!
On June 10 2011 08:51 accaris wrote: I think this is a good move. The welfare system has it's ups and downs; for example, here, you can't have a licensed vehicle and apply for food stamps. The government will tell you that you can sell your car to get food, and you won't qualify. On the other hand, I often get jealous when I see some fat mama on food stamps with a shopping cart full of name brand Doritos, name brand Mountain Dew, all expensive food, whatever she wants, and my tax dollars are paying for it. Bitch you should be restricted to generic only, and no junk food.
this is true but you know, i usually tend to think that the government fucks us all up the ass so much in so many ways that ill take what i can get , fuckyouverymuch!
Poor guy just cant get rid of his majority share of Solantic.
First he (sort of) transfers the shares to his wife in an Revocable Trust then he desperatly tries to sell them. But this damn state agency (he now is head of) just wont aprove. Meanwhile he is busy fighting drugs by screening state workers and wellfare applicants.
---- money making aside. i think this is terrible. and approval to this seems extremely short sighted to me.
On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote: the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes
Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_-
Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument?
do you see the flaw in yours?
using drugs != the mafia.
one is a victimless crime, the other is a criminal organization..
Eeeeh...I'd hesitate to call drug use a victimless crime. More like an often unfornate and tragic circumstance. But I sincerely doubt victimless.
Depending on the drug and type/level of addiction of course.
On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote: the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes
Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_-
Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument?
do you see the flaw in yours?
using drugs != the mafia.
one is a victimless crime, the other is a criminal organization..
Eeeeh...I'd hesitate to call drug use a victimless crime. More like an often unfornate and tragic circumstance. But I sincerely doubt victimless.
Depending on the drug and type/level of addiction of course.
It's not really victimless at all here in the U.S. Most the drugs are smuggled in through Mexico, and the cartels that are supported are shockingly brutal. They are known for kidnapping, murder, and beheadings.
I suppose if its pot and its homegrown or from Canada you could say its victimless, but I'm pretty sure that is a pretty small % of the drugs overall.
i think everyones chance of being stabbed in the back by a junky just got increased. Drugs are number 1 to them weither they have to get some clean piss or give a blow job or two breaking the law for there next hit is no worries to them
On June 10 2011 07:54 Bunnypanda wrote: I find it hilarious that so many Americans are cheering for this, this is a blatant foot on the constitution, if this does not get overruled i will be shocked. Looking forward to them explaining why they should search everyone in need for drugs "just because". That argument is going to be a hoot.
And they say the Democrats are "ruining the constitution" at their healthcare rally's, ha.
if you lent a friend some money specifically for one thing he desperately needed and then he goes and buys some crack with it wouldn't you be inclined either to not lend him money anymore or at least know that he's not going to buy crack again?
and that's a friendship. the government isn't anyone's friend
if your friend spent half of it on paying his rent so he didnt made homeless and have to mug an old lady, but the other half on crack or on a new tv?
If you are getting so much money from welfare that you can spend half of it on a tv, then one of these two statements is true:
A) You are getting too much money. B) Welfare barely gives enough money to pay rent + food + bills. So you probably have a secondary source of income that you're not reporting, or you're malnourishing yourself.
I'm gonna go with B, but hey, maybe it's A. Either way, it's a problem.
I mean, damn, I know I sure can't afford to spend half my paycheck on luxury items like drugs and I work near full time. These welfare people must be making a lot more money than me.
On June 10 2011 07:54 Bunnypanda wrote: I find it hilarious that so many Americans are cheering for this, this is a blatant foot on the constitution, if this does not get overruled i will be shocked. Looking forward to them explaining why they should search everyone in need for drugs "just because". That argument is going to be a hoot.
And they say the Democrats are "ruining the constitution" at their healthcare rally's, ha.
if you lent a friend some money specifically for one thing he desperately needed and then he goes and buys some crack with it wouldn't you be inclined either to not lend him money anymore or at least know that he's not going to buy crack again?
and that's a friendship. the government isn't anyone's friend
if your friend spent half of it on paying his rent so he didnt made homeless and have to mug an old lady, but the other half on crack or on a new tv?
If you are getting so much money from welfare that you can spend half of it on a tv, then one of these two statements is true:
A) You are getting too much money. B) Welfare barely gives enough money to pay rent + food + bills. So you probably have a secondary source of income that you're not reporting, or you're malnourishing yourself.
I'm gonna go with B, but hey, maybe it's A. Either way, it's a problem.
I mean, damn, I know I sure can't afford to spend half my paycheck on luxury items like drugs and I work near full time. These welfare people must be making a lot more money than me.
On June 10 2011 09:13 Yogie wrote: i think everyones chance of being stabbed in the back by a junky just got increased. Drugs are number 1 to them weither they have to get some clean piss or give a blow job or two breaking the law for there next hit is no worries to them
What an adorable post :3
I kind of just see this move as a less-than-effective way to spend even more money on these programs, as drug testing is not free or cheap at all. Then again that sounds like the cornerstone of our drug enforcement policies anyway lol. But it's not really a big deal anyway, the only people who will be denied welfare are those who are too reckless to get past a simple drug test. Big boo hoo from me.
On June 10 2011 09:34 Nizaris wrote: sigh, drug tests only detects idiots. The rest will just buy clean piss on craigslist.
On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote: the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes
Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_-
Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument?
do you see the flaw in yours?
using drugs != the mafia.
one is a victimless crime, the other is a criminal organization..
Eeeeh...I'd hesitate to call drug use a victimless crime. More like an often unfornate and tragic circumstance. But I sincerely doubt victimless.
Depending on the drug and type/level of addiction of course.
Is there some drug that magically harms someone other than the person using it?
On June 10 2011 05:34 Omnipresent wrote: That's not a rebuttal.
An illegal search is mandated in order to receive benefits to which you are entitled. The fact that the state doesn't literally hold you down to extract blood or urine from you doesn't mean you're allowed to consent. If you "consent," you get the benefits you're legally entitled to. If you don't, the state withholds your benefits.
You're using the word "consent" in a place it doesn't belong. The state can't legally force you to choose between taking a drug test and receiving your benefits. That's the definition of an unreasonable search.
You keep ignoring my posts but I'll continue to provide counterpoints to your argument (that is without basis) for other people's benefit:
You are only entitled to benefits if you fit the qualifications of the program.
People who smoke cigarettes who have COPD and are on Oxygen 24/7 are not entitled to their benefits from Social Security Disability despite how much they've paid in becuase they are violating the qualifications of the program.
The same is said for any requirement or background qualification of any government program.
Technically we've all paid in, and are all entitled to attempt to qualify.
Just like SSDI, you don't automatically qualify for welfare. Screening for drug use as a qualifying feature is an addition to the legislation, not a complete reworking of the ideology behind it, nor is it unconstitutional.
Sorry, I didn't intend to Ignore you. I was balls tired and not really able to focus on too many things at once.
Submitting medical records for a medical disability program (like social security disability) is a complete necessity, and the government isn't obligated to cover every type of disability. That's not what a drug test for welfare is.
There may be a background check for various government programs as well, but that's just a review of public records. There's no new search going on. The background check isn't discovering new information. This isn't even a search, and therefore isn't a 4th amendment issue at all.
But something like a state mandated drug test is a search. Without probable cause, it's an unlawful search. Claiming it's a requirement in order to qualify for benefits doesn't suddenly make it constitutional. If you want to drug test welfare recipients on parole for drug-related offenses, that's fine. Testing everyone, regardless of suspicion, is the most clear example of an unlawful search possible.
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
Not if it's unconstitutional...
You're doing verbal gymnastics here. People who otherwise qualify for welfare are being subjected to an illegal search in order to receive their benefits. That's the point. Claiming the test is part of qualifying for welfare instead of part of claiming benefits doesn't change the issue. This is a state-mandated search without cause and without a warrant. It's unconstitutional.
On June 10 2011 05:19 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 10 2011 05:15 Babyfactory wrote:
On June 10 2011 05:13 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 10 2011 05:03 Omnipresent wrote:
On June 10 2011 04:52 Kaitlin wrote:
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption.
And that's a fine debate, what "should" be the requirements to become eligible for welfare or whatever other benefits. Florida has taken the stance that one of those requirements is successful drug screening. This is not a 4th Amendment issue, nor is anyone automatically "entitled" to such government benefits without qualification by whatever means the state requires.
Florida doesn't have the legal authority to make that provision. This is still a clear 4th amendment issue. They're not allowed to mandate the search no matter what.
Except for the fact that you're completely wrong. They aren't prosecuting people if the test comes back positive.
While 4th amendment issues usually arise out of criminal cases, the state doesn't have to prosecute (or even intend to prosecute) individuals in order for a search to be illegal.
Here's a hypothetical. Florida wants to do a survey of how many households have meth users in them. They want to do this study for purely academic reasons. The terms of the study explicitly forbid prosecution based on any evidence collected during the study. The state decides to thoroughly check everyone's home for meth, pipes, etc. (entering without permission and searching). This would clearly be unconstitutional. It doesn't matter if they ever prosecute, or intend to prosecute, anyone.
Just like the state needs a warrant to enter your home, they've always needed a warrant (or other court order) in order to compel you to donate urine, blood or hair for testing. This program is no different. This is a very solid 4th amendment issue.
On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote: the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes
Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_-
Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument?
do you see the flaw in yours?
using drugs != the mafia.
one is a victimless crime, the other is a criminal organization..
Eeeeh...I'd hesitate to call drug use a victimless crime. More like an often unfornate and tragic circumstance. But I sincerely doubt victimless.
Depending on the drug and type/level of addiction of course.
Is there some drug that magically harms someone other than the person using it?
I think he means the ones that fund vicious cartels down in south America. So those would probably be heroin and cocaine.
On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote: the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes
Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_-
Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument?
do you see the flaw in yours?
using drugs != the mafia.
one is a victimless crime, the other is a criminal organization..
Eeeeh...I'd hesitate to call drug use a victimless crime. More like an often unfornate and tragic circumstance. But I sincerely doubt victimless.
Depending on the drug and type/level of addiction of course.
Is there some drug that magically harms someone other than the person using it?
I think he means the ones that fund vicious cartels down in south America. So those would probably be heroin and cocaine.
Weed is also a major income for cartels. It was like 30% of their income iirc.
Governments apparently are glad that i give 5% of my income to criminals.
On June 10 2011 05:34 Omnipresent wrote: That's not a rebuttal.
An illegal search is mandated in order to receive benefits to which you are entitled. The fact that the state doesn't literally hold you down to extract blood or urine from you doesn't mean you're allowed to consent. If you "consent," you get the benefits you're legally entitled to. If you don't, the state withholds your benefits.
You're using the word "consent" in a place it doesn't belong. The state can't legally force you to choose between taking a drug test and receiving your benefits. That's the definition of an unreasonable search.
You keep ignoring my posts but I'll continue to provide counterpoints to your argument (that is without basis) for other people's benefit:
You are only entitled to benefits if you fit the qualifications of the program.
People who smoke cigarettes who have COPD and are on Oxygen 24/7 are not entitled to their benefits from Social Security Disability despite how much they've paid in becuase they are violating the qualifications of the program.
The same is said for any requirement or background qualification of any government program.
Technically we've all paid in, and are all entitled to attempt to qualify.
Just like SSDI, you don't automatically qualify for welfare. Screening for drug use as a qualifying feature is an addition to the legislation, not a complete reworking of the ideology behind it, nor is it unconstitutional.
Sorry, I didn't intend to Ignore you. I was balls tired and not really able to focus on too many things at once.
Submitting medical records for a medical disability program (like social security disability) is a complete necessity, and the government isn't obligated to cover every type of disability. That's not what a drug test for welfare is.
There may be a background check for various government programs as well, but that's just a review of public records. There's no new search going on. The background check isn't discovering new information. This isn't even a search, and therefore isn't a 4th amendment issue at all.
But something like a state mandated drug test is a search. Without probable cause, it's an unlawful search. Claiming it's a requirement in order to qualify for benefits doesn't suddenly make it constitutional. If you want to drug test welfare recipients on parole for drug-related offenses, that's fine. Testing everyone, regardless of suspicion, is the most clear example of an unlawful search possible.
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
Not if it's unconstitutional...
You're doing verbal gymnastics here. People who otherwise qualify for welfare are being subjected to an illegal search in order to receive their benefits. That's the point. Claiming the test is part of qualifying for welfare instead of part of claiming benefits doesn't change the issue. This is a state-mandated search without cause and without a warrant. It's unconstitutional.
On June 10 2011 05:19 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 10 2011 05:15 Babyfactory wrote:
On June 10 2011 05:13 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 10 2011 05:03 Omnipresent wrote:
On June 10 2011 04:52 Kaitlin wrote:
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption.
And that's a fine debate, what "should" be the requirements to become eligible for welfare or whatever other benefits. Florida has taken the stance that one of those requirements is successful drug screening. This is not a 4th Amendment issue, nor is anyone automatically "entitled" to such government benefits without qualification by whatever means the state requires.
Florida doesn't have the legal authority to make that provision. This is still a clear 4th amendment issue. They're not allowed to mandate the search no matter what.
Except for the fact that you're completely wrong. They aren't prosecuting people if the test comes back positive.
While 4th amendment issues usually arise out of criminal cases, the state doesn't have to prosecute (or even intend to prosecute) individuals in order for a search to be illegal.
Here's a hypothetical. Florida wants to do a survey of how many households have meth users in them. They want to do this study for purely academic reasons. The terms of the study explicitly forbid prosecution based on any evidence collected during the study. The state decides to thoroughly check everyone's home for meth, pipes, etc. (entering without permission and searching). This would clearly be unconstitutional. It doesn't matter if they ever prosecute, or intend to prosecute, anyone.
Just like the state needs a warrant to enter your home, they've always needed a warrant (or other court order) in order to compel you to donate urine, blood or hair for testing. This program is no different. This is a very solid 4th amendment issue.
Your example isn't the same as this situation. If you could opt out of the search, it would be fine. Welfare is NOT MANDATORY. There is no law that requires these people to get the free government money. But in your example, it is a mandatory search of each house/person/whatever.
On June 10 2011 05:34 Omnipresent wrote: That's not a rebuttal.
An illegal search is mandated in order to receive benefits to which you are entitled. The fact that the state doesn't literally hold you down to extract blood or urine from you doesn't mean you're allowed to consent. If you "consent," you get the benefits you're legally entitled to. If you don't, the state withholds your benefits.
You're using the word "consent" in a place it doesn't belong. The state can't legally force you to choose between taking a drug test and receiving your benefits. That's the definition of an unreasonable search.
You keep ignoring my posts but I'll continue to provide counterpoints to your argument (that is without basis) for other people's benefit:
You are only entitled to benefits if you fit the qualifications of the program.
People who smoke cigarettes who have COPD and are on Oxygen 24/7 are not entitled to their benefits from Social Security Disability despite how much they've paid in becuase they are violating the qualifications of the program.
The same is said for any requirement or background qualification of any government program.
Technically we've all paid in, and are all entitled to attempt to qualify.
Just like SSDI, you don't automatically qualify for welfare. Screening for drug use as a qualifying feature is an addition to the legislation, not a complete reworking of the ideology behind it, nor is it unconstitutional.
Sorry, I didn't intend to Ignore you. I was balls tired and not really able to focus on too many things at once.
Submitting medical records for a medical disability program (like social security disability) is a complete necessity, and the government isn't obligated to cover every type of disability. That's not what a drug test for welfare is.
There may be a background check for various government programs as well, but that's just a review of public records. There's no new search going on. The background check isn't discovering new information. This isn't even a search, and therefore isn't a 4th amendment issue at all.
But something like a state mandated drug test is a search. Without probable cause, it's an unlawful search. Claiming it's a requirement in order to qualify for benefits doesn't suddenly make it constitutional. If you want to drug test welfare recipients on parole for drug-related offenses, that's fine. Testing everyone, regardless of suspicion, is the most clear example of an unlawful search possible.
On June 10 2011 05:42 RoosterSamurai wrote:
On June 10 2011 05:21 Omnipresent wrote:
On June 10 2011 05:13 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 10 2011 05:03 Omnipresent wrote:
On June 10 2011 04:52 Kaitlin wrote:
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
Not if it's unconstitutional...
You're doing verbal gymnastics here. People who otherwise qualify for welfare are being subjected to an illegal search in order to receive their benefits. That's the point. Claiming the test is part of qualifying for welfare instead of part of claiming benefits doesn't change the issue. This is a state-mandated search without cause and without a warrant. It's unconstitutional.
On June 10 2011 05:19 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 10 2011 05:15 Babyfactory wrote:
On June 10 2011 05:13 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 10 2011 05:03 Omnipresent wrote:
On June 10 2011 04:52 Kaitlin wrote:
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.
You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient".
And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption.
And that's a fine debate, what "should" be the requirements to become eligible for welfare or whatever other benefits. Florida has taken the stance that one of those requirements is successful drug screening. This is not a 4th Amendment issue, nor is anyone automatically "entitled" to such government benefits without qualification by whatever means the state requires.
Florida doesn't have the legal authority to make that provision. This is still a clear 4th amendment issue. They're not allowed to mandate the search no matter what.
Except for the fact that you're completely wrong. They aren't prosecuting people if the test comes back positive.
While 4th amendment issues usually arise out of criminal cases, the state doesn't have to prosecute (or even intend to prosecute) individuals in order for a search to be illegal.
Here's a hypothetical. Florida wants to do a survey of how many households have meth users in them. They want to do this study for purely academic reasons. The terms of the study explicitly forbid prosecution based on any evidence collected during the study. The state decides to thoroughly check everyone's home for meth, pipes, etc. (entering without permission and searching). This would clearly be unconstitutional. It doesn't matter if they ever prosecute, or intend to prosecute, anyone.
Just like the state needs a warrant to enter your home, they've always needed a warrant (or other court order) in order to compel you to donate urine, blood or hair for testing. This program is no different. This is a very solid 4th amendment issue.
Your example isn't the same as this situation. If you could opt out of the search, it would be fine. Welfare is NOT MANDATORY. There is no law that requires these people to get the free government money. But in your example, it is a mandatory search of each house/person/whatever.
That's a fair distinction to make, but it doesn't change the end point. Take the same hypothetical, but they only want to search your home for meth if you intend to collect state tax returns. You don't have to let them search your home. It's "NOT MANDATORY," but you're forced for forgo money to which you're entitled if you deny their unreasonable search.
Whether the search is technically mandatory or not, welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits under the law. Denying them those benefits because they refuse to comply with an unreasonable search (without probable cause) is essentially the same thing as making it mandatory.
People don't understand addiction. What I predict happening; many many people will test positive for drugs and be denied the benefit. They are then forced into crime / homelessness to continue their drug habbit and to just live. Taxpayer money is now shunted towards repairing damage done by crime and medical expenses. Nice job.
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
Its all very well and good to be self righteous about drug use. But its not as clear cut and simple as "only criminals / bad people do drugs". Its societies problem to prevent it from happening in the first place and to HELP those who are addicted. Many addicts feel trapped in their situation; "well If i seek help I will go to prison / lose my job and house" etc. This kind of legislation is just conservative morons wanting to sweep the problem under the rug, only for it to push out the other side.
On June 10 2011 09:55 LtLolburger wrote: People don't understand addiction. What I predict happening; many many people will test positive for drugs and be denied the benefit. They are then forced into crime / homelessness to continue their drug habbit and to just live. Taxpayer money is now shunted towards repairing damage done by crime and medical expenses. Nice job.
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
Its all very well and good to be self righteous about drug use. But its not as clear cut and simple as "only criminals / bad people do drugs". Its societies problem to prevent it from happening in the first place and to HELP those who are addicted. Many addicts feel trapped in their situation; "well If i seek help I will go to prison / lose my job and house" etc. This kind of legislation is just conservative morons wanting to sweep the problem under the rug, only for it to push out the other side.
Clearly you don't understand it either. "Addiction" doesn't make you dumb. Like i said idiots will fail, the rest will buy clean piss on craigslist.
All this does is SURPRISE waste tax payers dollars, who cares we have too much of those right? Thank fucking god it's not my taxes.
On June 10 2011 08:39 Mormagil wrote: I'm really confused why this is even a debate. Using the kind of drugs they are testing for is illegal. People who do illegal things are tried and sent to jail. Nobody has a problem with this. Why, then, do people think it is a good idea to give these same people tax dollars?
I feel like it is a choice. If you feel like you want to do drugs, fine. More power to you, that's your life. However, it is against the law. You can't pick and chose which laws you want to have and which you want to break. You can't chose to go against the government on drugs and then go crying to the government for money. Just not how it works.
I believe that people who break the law should still be able to eat well, be sheltered, etc. Does anyone have a problem with this? Cause if not, then we still have to give people who did drugs a few days ago their welfare check, right? If we don't, there will be people who can't do those things that I, and many others, believe everyone should be able to do.
On June 10 2011 09:55 LtLolburger wrote: People don't understand addiction. What I predict happening; many many people will test positive for drugs and be denied the benefit. They are then forced into crime / homelessness to continue their drug habbit and to just live. Taxpayer money is now shunted towards repairing damage done by crime and medical expenses. Nice job.
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
Its all very well and good to be self righteous about drug use. But its not as clear cut and simple as "only criminals / bad people do drugs". Its societies problem to prevent it from happening in the first place and to HELP those who are addicted. Many addicts feel trapped in their situation; "well If i seek help I will go to prison / lose my job and house" etc. This kind of legislation is just conservative morons wanting to sweep the problem under the rug, only for it to push out the other side.
Clearly you don't understand it either. "Addiction" doesn't make you dumb. Like i said idiots will fail, the rest will buy clean piss on craigslist.
A) Why did you put addiction in quotes?
B) Why is it ok that idiots fail? Should we not care if idiots are starving on the streets?
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
You mean like the currently available drug programs for people in these situations ? Or would there be "additional" programs for these people specifically. How would these new programs be any different than the ones already existing, but they chose not to use ?
On June 10 2011 09:55 LtLolburger wrote: People don't understand addiction. What I predict happening; many many people will test positive for drugs and be denied the benefit. They are then forced into crime / homelessness to continue their drug habbit and to just live. Taxpayer money is now shunted towards repairing damage done by crime and medical expenses. Nice job.
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
Its all very well and good to be self righteous about drug use. But its not as clear cut and simple as "only criminals / bad people do drugs". Its societies problem to prevent it from happening in the first place and to HELP those who are addicted. Many addicts feel trapped in their situation; "well If i seek help I will go to prison / lose my job and house" etc. This kind of legislation is just conservative morons wanting to sweep the problem under the rug, only for it to push out the other side.
I agree. This is bad legislation but it doesn't surprise me coming from such a conservative state.
On June 10 2011 08:39 Mormagil wrote: I'm really confused why this is even a debate. Using the kind of drugs they are testing for is illegal. People who do illegal things are tried and sent to jail. Nobody has a problem with this. Why, then, do people think it is a good idea to give these same people tax dollars?
I feel like it is a choice. If you feel like you want to do drugs, fine. More power to you, that's your life. However, it is against the law. You can't pick and chose which laws you want to have and which you want to break. You can't chose to go against the government on drugs and then go crying to the government for money. Just not how it works.
I believe that people who break the law should still be able to eat well, be sheltered, etc. Does anyone have a problem with this? Cause if not, then we still have to give people who did drugs a few days ago their welfare check, right? If we don't, there will be people who can't do those things that I, and many others, believe everyone should be able to do.
On June 10 2011 09:55 LtLolburger wrote: People don't understand addiction. What I predict happening; many many people will test positive for drugs and be denied the benefit. They are then forced into crime / homelessness to continue their drug habbit and to just live. Taxpayer money is now shunted towards repairing damage done by crime and medical expenses. Nice job.
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
Its all very well and good to be self righteous about drug use. But its not as clear cut and simple as "only criminals / bad people do drugs". Its societies problem to prevent it from happening in the first place and to HELP those who are addicted. Many addicts feel trapped in their situation; "well If i seek help I will go to prison / lose my job and house" etc. This kind of legislation is just conservative morons wanting to sweep the problem under the rug, only for it to push out the other side.
Clearly you don't understand it either. "Addiction" doesn't make you dumb. Like i said idiots will fail, the rest will buy clean piss on craigslist.
A) Why did you put addiction in quotes?
B) Why is it ok that idiots fail? Should we not care if idiots are starving on the streets?
A) because many ppl consume drugs without being addicted.
B) Its not ok. i think this resolution is idiotic and doesn't fix anything. only thing it does is:
1. Waste tax payers dollars
2. Takes away civil liberties
Another reason why piss tests are dumb? The more synthetic the drug is the faster it is eliminated from your system. That mean piss tests can't detect heroin/cocain users at all if they can stop 48h prior of the test. Weed on the other hand being natural stays in your system for months. Morale of the story? if you wanna get high while on welfare, do hard drugs. If anything they should take away your benefits if they detect alcohol or caffeine in your system too. Shit's worse for your health the half of the illegal stuff.
On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote: the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes
Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_-
Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument?
do you see the flaw in yours?
using drugs != the mafia.
one is a victimless crime, the other is a criminal organization..
You missed the analogy entirely. FFGenerations suggested that we should not deny drug users welfare or they will commit crimes to pay for their drug habits. By the same logic, we should bribe all armed robbers so that they don't have to commit robberies.
On June 10 2011 08:49 FFGenerations wrote:no im pointing out the REALITY of the situation
The reality of the situation is that giving people money so that they don't commit crimes is a terribad way to go about it. What we should be doing is spending that money on a combination of drug counseling, rehab, education and vocational training, and law enforcement.
Giving drug addicts money is just an (expensive) band-aid that amounts to appeasement.
On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote: the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes
Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_-
Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument?
do you see the flaw in yours?
using drugs != the mafia.
one is a victimless crime, the other is a criminal organization..
You missed the analogy entirely. FFGenerations suggested that we should not deny drug users welfare or they will commit crimes to pay for their drug habits. By the same logic, we should bribe all armed robbers so that they don't have to commit robberies.
The problem with your original point is that it's ridiculous to say mafia members HAVE to commit crimes, since the alternative is a normal life. But for people on welfare, if you don't give them money, the alternative is begging on the streets, (or worse) which makes it more reasonable to say that they HAVE to commit crimes.
If someone has to choose between committing a crime and sleeping on the streets with an empty stomach, then it makes perfect sense to give them money to eat and find a place to live, since people have a right to those basic necessities, and the only way they will get them is if they are given money.
I agree that the guy you quoted did miss the point, though.
EDIT:
The reality of the situation is that giving people money so that they don't commit crimes is a terribad way to go about it. What we should be doing is spending that money on a combination of drug counseling, rehab, education and vocational training, and law enforcement.
Giving drug addicts money is just an (expensive) band-aid that amounts to appeasement.
Yeah, those are good options too, but they aren't on the table right now. We have to choose between giving them money and giving them nothing. Rick Scott sure as hell isn't gonna pay for rehab, he doesn't even want to pay for food!
On June 10 2011 10:15 huameng wrote:The problem with your original point is that it's ridiculous to say mafia members HAVE to commit crimes, since the alternative is a normal life. But for people on welfare, if you don't give them money, the alternative is begging on the streets, (or worse) which makes it more reasonable to say that they HAVE to commit crimes.
Most people turn to a life of (street) crime in the first place because they have few better options for socio-economic security. The fact that some people at the top make it big and live comfortably if they go legit doesn't change the fact that most criminals have little alternatives. There was a study done at the University of Chicago that revealed that most criminals make the equivalent of minimum wage or less (hence why many younger criminals live with their parents), and only the people at the top do well.
So yes, in many cases, street criminals do commit crime out of necessity. This is why street crime is strongly correlated with poverty.
On June 10 2011 10:15 huameng wrote:If someone has to choose between committing a crime and sleeping on the streets with an empty stomach, then it makes perfect sense to give them money to eat and find a place to live, since people have a right to those basic necessities, and the only way they will get them is if they are given money.
It makes much better sense to give them food and a place to live, but not money that they frequently choose to spend on drugs instead of their basic necessities.
It also makes sense to force people into going to shelters/rehabilitation centers to meet their needs rather than recieving checks they can spend on whatever, since the former increases the chance that someone can talk to them and help them start a path to getting off drugs.
On June 10 2011 10:15 huameng wrote:Yeah, those are good options too, but they aren't on the table right now. We have to choose between giving them money and giving them nothing. Rick Scott sure as hell isn't gonna pay for rehab, he doesn't even want to pay for food!
They do exist in various forms, but drug addicts don't utilize them, primarily because they don't have to. If you can get the money you need for drugs from welfare, why go to a rehab center for food, shelter, and drug counseling?
Take away the welfare option, and while some people might choose crime, others will be incentivized towards reform.
On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote: the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes
Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_-
Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument?
do you see the flaw in yours?
using drugs != the mafia.
one is a victimless crime, the other is a criminal organization..
Confident that drugs create many victims. Both the users, their families and friends/people around them are all affected. Drugs also travel through criminal organizations, and many people join them to make their substance abuse affordable.
On June 10 2011 10:40 matjlav wrote: yeah, let's cut off drug addicts from any sort of financial help. That will help them to sort their lives out! great idea!
Cutting off the financial support for their addiction is a start, though.
On June 10 2011 10:40 matjlav wrote: yeah, let's cut off drug addicts from any sort of financial help. That will help them to sort their lives out! great idea!
Cutting off the financial support for their addiction is a start, though.
The idea sounds good, but we should never ever think it's a good thing if the government regulates lives of private people. Note that inherent human's desire for consuming fats in their diet can also be construed as 'addiction'. Why not? Your cholesterol is above an arbitrarily set number - no welfare check for you. You smoke - no welfare. You eat sugar? OMFG, GTFO!
This is a bad idea, at best. It will accomplish all of two things: a) A very small number of recreational drug users will clean their act up and switch to other substances. b) The other welfare recipients, from your average joe unemployed who smokes a joint a day to the serious hard drug addicts, will find themselves with no money. Ask the people that live in downtown Vancouver what crackheads do for their next fix. It's not as if welfare was already paying for all of their drug use before though, they'll just work a bit more on the black market or smash for car windows to steal change.
But what happens when kids are involved ? No money either ?
Robert K. Merton will probably be saying "I told you so" from the grave once the crime rates rise.
On June 10 2011 10:40 matjlav wrote: yeah, let's cut off drug addicts from any sort of financial help. That will help them to sort their lives out! great idea!
Cutting off the financial support for their addiction is a start, though.
The idea sounds good, but we should never ever think it's a good thing if the government regulates lives of private people. Note that inherent human's desire for consuming fats in their diet can also be construed as 'addiction'. Why not? Your cholesterol is above an arbitrarily set number - no welfare check for you. You smoke - no welfare. You eat sugar? OMFG, GTFO!
If you think thats taking away their civil liberties you are 100% wrong, They are receiving money from the government and tax payers money. The government has every right to regulate who receives it, you don't like it stop getting welfare.
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
You mean like the currently available drug programs for people in these situations ? Or would there be "additional" programs for these people specifically. How would these new programs be any different than the ones already existing, but they chose not to use ?
You do know how hard it is for your average drug addict to have access to those ressources right ? It's not as if they are ALREADY underfunded and understaffed or anything.
On June 10 2011 10:15 huameng wrote:The problem with your original point is that it's ridiculous to say mafia members HAVE to commit crimes, since the alternative is a normal life. But for people on welfare, if you don't give them money, the alternative is begging on the streets, (or worse) which makes it more reasonable to say that they HAVE to commit crimes.
Most people turn to a life of (street) crime in the first place because they have few better options for socio-economic security. The fact that some people at the top make it big and live comfortably if they go legit doesn't change the fact that most criminals have little alternatives. There was a study done at the University of Chicago that revealed that most criminals make the equivalent of minimum wage or less (hence why many younger criminals live with their parents), and only the people at the top do well.
So yes, in many cases, street criminals do commit crime out of necessity. This is why street crime is strongly correlated with poverty.
Yes, I thought you were trying to exclude the kind of street criminal who is committing crimes out of necessity when you brought up mafia members. I was trying to argue that street criminals commit crime out of necessity; my bad if you interpreted it some other way. And I believe that a solution to this is to keep giving them welfare, even if they use drugs!
On June 10 2011 10:15 huameng wrote:If someone has to choose between committing a crime and sleeping on the streets with an empty stomach, then it makes perfect sense to give them money to eat and find a place to live, since people have a right to those basic necessities, and the only way they will get them is if they are given money.
It makes much better sense to give them food and a place to live, but not money that they frequently choose to spend on drugs instead of their basic necessities.
It also makes sense to force people into going to shelters/rehabilitation centers to meet their needs rather than recieving checks they can spend on whatever, since the former increases the chance that someone can talk to them and help them start a path to getting off drugs.
On June 10 2011 10:15 huameng wrote:Yeah, those are good options too, but they aren't on the table right now. We have to choose between giving them money and giving them nothing. Rick Scott sure as hell isn't gonna pay for rehab, he doesn't even want to pay for food!
They do exist in various forms, but drug addicts don't utilize them, primarily because they don't have to. If you can get the money you need for drugs from welfare, why go to a rehab center for food, shelter, and drug counseling?
Take away the welfare option, and while some people might choose crime, others will be incentivized towards reform.
Why should we incentivize these people to stop doing drugs by making their lives so shitty they have no other choice? If they think a drug addicted life on welfare is better than going to rehab, I find it hard to believe the problem is that the drug addicted life on welfare is too good, and that we should take away the welfare! I think approaching the problem like this will make it a lot harder to solve, but a lot more rewarding and with a much better long term prognosis.
On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Yes, I thought you were trying to exclude the kind of street criminal who is committing crimes out of necessity when you brought up mafia members. I was trying to argue that street criminals commit crime out of necessity; my bad if you interpreted it some other way. And I believe that a solution to this is to keep giving them welfare, even if they use drugs!
I'd propose the solution that anyone who cannot pass a drug test be provided access to centers where they can get food, shelter, clothing, drug counseling, etc.
No cash unless you can pass a drug test. Sound reasonable?
On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Why should we incentivize these people to stop doing drugs by making their lives so shitty they have no other choice? If they think a drug addicted life on welfare is better than going to rehab, I find it hard to believe the problem is that the drug addicted life on welfare is too good, and that we should take away the welfare! I think approaching the problem like this will make it a lot harder to solve, but a lot more rewarding and with a much better long term prognosis.
I don't think they consider the drug addicted life on welfare "too good", but apparently, it's "good enough" that they are willing to continue it.
This isn't a legal criminal case, it's a way to ensure that taxpayer money isn't being wasted on drugs. I'm all for wasting less taxpayer money, we need to start cutting back, and this is just a start.
On June 10 2011 10:40 matjlav wrote: yeah, let's cut off drug addicts from any sort of financial help. That will help them to sort their lives out! great idea!
Cutting off the financial support for their addiction is a start, though.
The idea sounds good, but we should never ever think it's a good thing if the government regulates lives of private people.
They aren't regulating lives of private people, they are regulating the use of taxpayer money so it is not spent on illegal drug use. I don't think there's any problems in that.
On June 10 2011 09:55 LtLolburger wrote: People don't understand addiction. What I predict happening; many many people will test positive for drugs and be denied the benefit. They are then forced into crime / homelessness to continue their drug habbit and to just live. Taxpayer money is now shunted towards repairing damage done by crime and medical expenses. Nice job.
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
Its all very well and good to be self righteous about drug use. But its not as clear cut and simple as "only criminals / bad people do drugs". Its societies problem to prevent it from happening in the first place and to HELP those who are addicted. Many addicts feel trapped in their situation; "well If i seek help I will go to prison / lose my job and house" etc. This kind of legislation is just conservative morons wanting to sweep the problem under the rug, only for it to push out the other side.
I agree. This is bad legislation but it doesn't surprise me coming from such a conservative state.
So you think just throwing money at people with drug problems is going to help reduce drug proliferation and drug related crime?
Better save that money for drug awareness and/or rehabilitation programs rather than just giving money to drug addicts.
On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Yes, I thought you were trying to exclude the kind of street criminal who is committing crimes out of necessity when you brought up mafia members. I was trying to argue that street criminals commit crime out of necessity; my bad if you interpreted it some other way. And I believe that a solution to this is to keep giving them welfare, even if they use drugs!
I'd propose the solution that anyone who cannot pass a drug test be provided access to centers where they can get food, shelter, clothing, drug counseling, etc.
No cash unless you can pass a drug test. Sound reasonable?
On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Why should we incentivize these people to stop doing drugs by making their lives so shitty they have no other choice? If they think a drug addicted life on welfare is better than going to rehab, I find it hard to believe the problem is that the drug addicted life on welfare is too good, and that we should take away the welfare! I think approaching the problem like this will make it a lot harder to solve, but a lot more rewarding and with a much better long term prognosis.
I don't think they consider the drug addicted life on welfare "too good", but apparently, it's "good enough" that they are willing to continue it.
I don't think proposing different solutions is in the scope of this discussion. I'm much more interested in arguing against what is currently going down in Florida. I wouldn't really like what you proposed either, but it's certainly better than what the Florida legislatures came up with.
And they think the drug addicted life is better than life in rehab, right? I doubt they think their life is better than, oh, Dirk Nowitzki's, but still better than checking into a drug treatment facility. The solution to this is to make drug treatment facilities better, not to make the drug addicted life worse, and that is something I can get behind wholeheartedly. I also don't find the drug addicted life being good enough to willingly continue it a problem, and even if you think it is a problem, it's not one that should be solved with a "quit or starve" ultimatum.
Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.
On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it.Makes perfect sense to me.
Why stop at welfare? Why not drug test everyone who does anything with the government? Why not drug test everyone who works for the government? Why not drug test everyone who gets benefits from the government? After all, we don't want people sitting on the road, which we have paid for with our tax dollars, to use drugs.
This is incredibly scary from my point of view. It creates an incredibly unethical precedent which can, and most likely will, be used to make it legal for the government to drug test anyone.
On June 10 2011 15:40 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Why stop at welfare? Why not drug test everyone who does anything with the government? Why not drug test everyone who works for the government? Why not drug test everyone who gets benefits from the government? After all, we don't want people sitting on the road, which we have paid for with our tax dollars, to use drugs.
This is incredibly scary from my point of view. It creates an incredibly unethical precedent which can, and most likely will, be used to make it legal for the government to drug test anyone.
Welcome to 1984 Winston...
You think this sets a precedent that Obamacare doesn't ?
On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Yes, I thought you were trying to exclude the kind of street criminal who is committing crimes out of necessity when you brought up mafia members. I was trying to argue that street criminals commit crime out of necessity; my bad if you interpreted it some other way. And I believe that a solution to this is to keep giving them welfare, even if they use drugs!
I'd propose the solution that anyone who cannot pass a drug test be provided access to centers where they can get food, shelter, clothing, drug counseling, etc.
No cash unless you can pass a drug test. Sound reasonable?
On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Why should we incentivize these people to stop doing drugs by making their lives so shitty they have no other choice? If they think a drug addicted life on welfare is better than going to rehab, I find it hard to believe the problem is that the drug addicted life on welfare is too good, and that we should take away the welfare! I think approaching the problem like this will make it a lot harder to solve, but a lot more rewarding and with a much better long term prognosis.
I don't think they consider the drug addicted life on welfare "too good", but apparently, it's "good enough" that they are willing to continue it.
I don't think proposing different solutions is in the scope of this discussion. I'm much more interested in arguing against what is currently going down in Florida. I wouldn't really like what you proposed either, but it's certainly better than what the Florida legislatures came up with.
And they think the drug addicted life is better than life in rehab, right? I doubt they think their life is better than, oh, Dirk Nowitzki's, but still better than checking into a drug treatment facility. The solution to this is to make drug treatment facilities better, not to make the drug addicted life worse, and that is something I can get behind wholeheartedly. I also don't find the drug addicted life being good enough to willingly continue it a problem, and even if you think it is a problem, it's not one that should be solved with a "quit or starve" ultimatum.
Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.
ACLU is hilarious. Why do I have to take a drug test for a job but welfare applicants get to avoid it? Funny how the people that pay taxes so we have programs like this get no representation like this. Is it that incredibly hard to stay clean so you pass your test and then you can resume your addiction? Come the fuck on.
To the people who are in favor of these measures, you do know that drug testing isn't free and that the majority (if not the vast majority) of people benefitting from welfare aren't drug users ? Non crappy and inclusive drug testing is very expensive and the elderly are a huge segment of welfare recipients. I very much doubt shelling thousands of dollars a year to check if Bethel, age 67, is smoking crack in her free time will really save the taxpayers any money, especially when you factor in that you will have to hire more governement wokers to administer the tests, get the results from the lab, mail the letters, etc.
The attitude of "I have to do it to get a job, why don't they have to do it to get free money" is really shortsighted at best and doesn't take into consideration all the potential pitfalls of such a program, instead of focusing on one little potential benefit. This is cutting the nose to spite the face: adressing the problem with better rehabilitation programs and job creation would help in the long term, but this is just a political bandaid.
On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it.Makes perfect sense to me.
User was warned for this post
Clever.
I don't get it.
Back on topic:
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable.
Im surprised this isnt implemented on a Federal level, there are plenty of people gaming the system that do not need the aid and so make poor decisions like buying drugs.
There would be more government funding if these users were simply cut which could be used for rehab programs and such, unfortunately the article also states if you fail the testing you can allocate the funds to someone else. Im assuming this is where things get tricky because how are they going to screen that person or accept that person if they are unrelated or not a guardian?
On a personal note i growing up my family received aid from the government and I think still does, it negatively impacts the children when the parents are too busy getting fucked up to care for their families and this is one way to encourage those people to make a positive change in their lives.
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
If you haven't already (for whatever reason) please READ the article and THE THREAD before you post
Few things to point out.
1) Drug test's aren't free, thus "saving tax payer money" is at best a misnomer, and more appropriately a lie (or marketing). Drug testing thousands of people is not going to save anyone money. It's probably cheaper to let them use drugs.
2) Not everyone on welfare does drugs. A large portion perhaps (unknowable), but never the less, many of these people receiving benefits have children who have committed no crime except to be born to the (apparently) wrong parents.
3) Drug testing parolee's and ex-cons doesn't stop them from using/beating the test, and neither will this
4) And to the quoted poster, I suggest you read 1984 before spouting such off ridiculous non-sense. Remember it's better to say nothing, and have others assume you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I don't get it.
Back on topic:
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable.
While I agree with you, the legislation simply isn't fully justifiable otherwise there would be no discussion to the contrary. I can argue rather successfully that this would wind up costing the state more money, and possible screw people out of their benefits. Let's be frank I don't really care for most unemployed people, it's the mom with 6 kids who now has stand in line to piss in a cup twice a week to barely feed them.
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
YES! because people live to serve the government, not the other way, right? rednecks...
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
YES! because people live to serve the government, not the other way, right? rednecks...
I agree with the sentiment, but the name calling isn't necessary. Rednecks live in Alabama anyway
I just recently took a drug test for my new job. If you don't do drugs then I don't know what the big problem is, especially if they're free tests. It will only cost you a little time for some money that people may desperately need. If you truly need the money then just do it and get it over with.
This scares me. Why do people care so little for thier fellow men? As a resident of a western country you have the right that the government will help you when you lose your income.
Whatever you want to do with that money is your business. It's strange to me that people from a country that generaly holds freemdom high as one of the greatest goods agrees to laws like this which directly surpress freedom.
Do you lose your right to do what you want when you use drugs?
Drug addicts dont care what they have to do for their drugs ... prostitution, crime ... Not allowing welfare for addicts will remove the last "legal support" for them and force them to commit criminal acts to survive in the first place and to get their drugs.
This seems counterproductive to me and it totally removes any chance of an addict to "get off the needle".
On June 11 2011 00:10 Amestir wrote: This scares me. Why do people care so little for thier fellow men? As a resident of a western country you have the privilege that the government will help you when you lose your income.
Whatever you want to do with that money is your business. It's strange to me that people from a country that generaly holds freemdom high as one of the greatest goods agrees to laws like this which directly surpress freedom.
Do you lose your right to do what you want when you use drugs?
Fixed. The government has no responsibility if you can't pay your bills. This legislation is just trying to get the money to the people who want to help themselves.
I understand both sides of the arguments, and both sides have really great points. However, one point that shouldn't exist: People think they are entitled to this money. They are not. If you want this help from the government, then a simple drug test shouldn't be too much of a hassle. Yes, it sucks for the honest people, but such is the way of everything in life. The bad ruin it for the rest. Example: Security at the airports.
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable.
While I agree with you, the legislation simply isn't fully justifiable otherwise there would be no discussion to the contrary. I can argue rather successfully that this would wind up costing the state more money, and possible screw people out of their benefits. Let's be frank I don't really care for most unemployed people, it's the mom with 6 kids who now has stand in line to piss in a cup twice a week to barely feed them.
True.
A cousin on my Wife's side of the family is exactly like what you just described. She is on welfare, her boyfriend is on welfare, and they keep popping out kids. It's frustratingly sad.
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
If you haven't already (for whatever reason) please READ the article and THE THREAD before you post
Few things to point out.
1) Drug test's aren't free, thus "saving tax payer money" is at best a misnomer, and more appropriately a lie (or marketing). Drug testing thousands of people is not going to save anyone money. It's probably cheaper to let them use drugs.
2) Not everyone on welfare does drugs. A large portion perhaps (unknowable), but never the less, many of these people receiving benefits have children who have committed no crime except to be born to the (apparently) wrong parents.
3) Drug testing parolee's and ex-cons doesn't stop them from using/beating the test, and neither will this
4) And to the quoted poster, I suggest you read 1984 before spouting such off ridiculous non-sense. Remember it's better to say nothing, and have others assume you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable.
While I agree with you, the legislation simply isn't fully justifiable otherwise there would be no discussion to the contrary. I can argue rather successfully that this would wind up costing the state more money, and possible screw people out of their benefits. Let's be frank I don't really care for most unemployed people, it's the mom with 6 kids who now has stand in line to piss in a cup twice a week to barely feed them.
I disagree $42 is much cheaper than just handing out drug addicts checks that are at minimum 5 times that amount. Ones that claim children and it goes up exponentially. They way I see it though is that this is good for Florida. With a demand of 150,000+ recipients needing to get drug tested opens up employment opportunities for people that live there. You can take the Certified Professional Collections Trainer course for about $150. it's a 7 hour course. It opens opportunities to get a job making over 30k a year. I don't think this is a bad situation for anyone.
On June 11 2011 00:10 Amestir wrote: This scares me. Why do people care so little for thier fellow men? As a resident of a western country you have the right that the government will help you when you lose your income.
Whatever you want to do with that money is your business. It's strange to me that people from a country that generaly holds freemdom high as one of the greatest goods agrees to laws like this which directly surpress freedom.
Do you lose your right to do what you want when you use drugs?
Pretty much the whole Western world thinks that welfare is a right, while the US and huge chunks of Canada see it as a privilege. Social solidarity isn't as engraved in the mentalities over here, so you have ridiculous legislations that will cost the taxpayers money to appeal to the sentiment that people on welfare, since they are living on the government dime, should be treated like second class citizens because they are supposedly lazy bums that universally game the system. The same people will argue in favour of smaller government when it applies to them mind you (taxes, health care, etc.): can't trust the government to give us free health care, they'll run it into the ground, but they can trust the governement to drug test hundred of thousands of people without making a mistake, all the while saving money. Yeah right.
This has nothing to do with helping people or balancing a budget and everything to do with the "pull yourself by the bootstraps" pipe dream. Acknowledging that social issues (mental/physical illness, lack of education, chronic poverty) leads to drug issues and that adressing these problems first, instead of the symptoms such as squandering welfare money on crack, is critical to solving the problem, gets you called a commie.
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
If you haven't already (for whatever reason) please READ the article and THE THREAD before you post
Few things to point out.
1) Drug test's aren't free, thus "saving tax payer money" is at best a misnomer, and more appropriately a lie (or marketing). Drug testing thousands of people is not going to save anyone money. It's probably cheaper to let them use drugs.
2) Not everyone on welfare does drugs. A large portion perhaps (unknowable), but never the less, many of these people receiving benefits have children who have committed no crime except to be born to the (apparently) wrong parents.
3) Drug testing parolee's and ex-cons doesn't stop them from using/beating the test, and neither will this
4) And to the quoted poster, I suggest you read 1984 before spouting such off ridiculous non-sense. Remember it's better to say nothing, and have others assume you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I don't get it.
Back on topic:
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable.
While I agree with you, the legislation simply isn't fully justifiable otherwise there would be no discussion to the contrary. I can argue rather successfully that this would wind up costing the state more money, and possible screw people out of their benefits. Let's be frank I don't really care for most unemployed people, it's the mom with 6 kids who now has stand in line to piss in a cup twice a week to barely feed them.
I disagree $42 is much cheaper than just handing out drug addicts checks that are at minimum 5 times that amount. Ones that claim children and it goes up exponentially. They way I see it though is that this is good for Florida. With a demand of 150,000+ recipients needing to get drug tested opens up employment opportunities for people that live there. You can take the Certified Professional Collections Trainer course for about $150. it's a 7 hour course. It opens opportunities to get a job making over 30k a year. I don't think this is a bad situation for anyone.
With this reasoning, everyone should throw their garbage directly in the street: the government could then hire thousand of workers to keep the streets clean and it would create new jobs ! Win/win situation !
You can't just say that drug testing costs are only 42$ per person and in the same breath say that new jobs at 30k a year will have to be created to administer the same tests. You have to take every factor in the equation. And it's not as if they will be testing people once in a lifetime either. This program will implement regular and frequent testing, thus the cost/benefit ratio will radically shoot down once the hypothetical free riders are all denied welfare because then you'll only be testing the clean people.
This could also be a scam to sell drug tests. Our government loves contracting jobs. If they can pass legislation that uses tax dollars to buy drug tests, then they have created a huge market for themselves. Happens all the time, one example is the TSA scanners. We signed a $165 million contract to have them installed in airports around the country.
If our federal and state governments didn't waste our money, if they taxed all people evenly and fairly, then we would have plenty of money for social programs. A very large portion of our tax dollars are embezzled everyday by politicians and their corporate friends. I suggest everyone read this book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman. http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/1576753018
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
If you haven't already (for whatever reason) please READ the article and THE THREAD before you post
Few things to point out.
1) Drug test's aren't free, thus "saving tax payer money" is at best a misnomer, and more appropriately a lie (or marketing). Drug testing thousands of people is not going to save anyone money. It's probably cheaper to let them use drugs.
2) Not everyone on welfare does drugs. A large portion perhaps (unknowable), but never the less, many of these people receiving benefits have children who have committed no crime except to be born to the (apparently) wrong parents.
3) Drug testing parolee's and ex-cons doesn't stop them from using/beating the test, and neither will this
4) And to the quoted poster, I suggest you read 1984 before spouting such off ridiculous non-sense. Remember it's better to say nothing, and have others assume you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I don't get it.
Back on topic:
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable.
While I agree with you, the legislation simply isn't fully justifiable otherwise there would be no discussion to the contrary. I can argue rather successfully that this would wind up costing the state more money, and possible screw people out of their benefits. Let's be frank I don't really care for most unemployed people, it's the mom with 6 kids who now has stand in line to piss in a cup twice a week to barely feed them.
I disagree $42 is much cheaper than just handing out drug addicts checks that are at minimum 5 times that amount. Ones that claim children and it goes up exponentially. They way I see it though is that this is good for Florida. With a demand of 150,000+ recipients needing to get drug tested opens up employment opportunities for people that live there. You can take the Certified Professional Collections Trainer course for about $150. it's a 7 hour course. It opens opportunities to get a job making over 30k a year. I don't think this is a bad situation for anyone.
With this reasoning, everyone should throw their garbage directly in the street: the government could then hire thousand of workers to keep the streets clean and it would create new jobs ! Win/win situation !
You can't just say that drug testing costs are only 42$ per person and in the same breath say that new jobs at 30k a year will have to be created to administer the same tests. You have to take every factor in the equation. And it's not as if they will be testing people once in a lifetime either. This program will implement regular and frequent testing, thus the cost/benefit ratio will radically shoot down once the hypothetical free riders are all denied welfare because then you'll only be testing the clean people.
Like I said above if I have to drug test for a job because I want to make money then welfare should have to test to make money also. Of course not this will hopefully be a long term thing for people interested in the medical field. No hopefully the clean ones will get jobs since they can pass a drug screen like anyone else. There are jobs that don't test also like restaurants maybe construction. So this entire thing is avoidable if they are embarrassed or on drugs. Can seek treatment also to get clean. Can't even begin to calculate the tax revenue these jobs will create. It all works out.
On June 11 2011 00:17 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: I see a rise in Floridian alcoholism.
Lol to that
But I don't see a problem with this. They won't be sent to jail if they fail a drug test. If they want to use money from the government for food or housing, they should not be spending money on things that they don't need. It isn't even about giving money to druggies, but more so instilling a sense of responsibility and value to the money they are given.
What happens when the cost of the drug tests exceeds the money they saved by declining people who tested positive? Would they admit that it hasn't solved the problem and remove it, or falsify positive results in order to make the numbers? Politicians being politicians, I'm more inclined to think the latter.
On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Yes, I thought you were trying to exclude the kind of street criminal who is committing crimes out of necessity when you brought up mafia members. I was trying to argue that street criminals commit crime out of necessity; my bad if you interpreted it some other way. And I believe that a solution to this is to keep giving them welfare, even if they use drugs!
I'd propose the solution that anyone who cannot pass a drug test be provided access to centers where they can get food, shelter, clothing, drug counseling, etc.
No cash unless you can pass a drug test. Sound reasonable?
On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Why should we incentivize these people to stop doing drugs by making their lives so shitty they have no other choice? If they think a drug addicted life on welfare is better than going to rehab, I find it hard to believe the problem is that the drug addicted life on welfare is too good, and that we should take away the welfare! I think approaching the problem like this will make it a lot harder to solve, but a lot more rewarding and with a much better long term prognosis.
I don't think they consider the drug addicted life on welfare "too good", but apparently, it's "good enough" that they are willing to continue it.
I don't think proposing different solutions is in the scope of this discussion. I'm much more interested in arguing against what is currently going down in Florida. I wouldn't really like what you proposed either, but it's certainly better than what the Florida legislatures came up with.
And they think the drug addicted life is better than life in rehab, right? I doubt they think their life is better than, oh, Dirk Nowitzki's, but still better than checking into a drug treatment facility. The solution to this is to make drug treatment facilities better, not to make the drug addicted life worse, and that is something I can get behind wholeheartedly. I also don't find the drug addicted life being good enough to willingly continue it a problem, and even if you think it is a problem, it's not one that should be solved with a "quit or starve" ultimatum.
Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.
ACLU is hilarious. Why do I have to take a drug test for a job but welfare applicants get to avoid it? Funny how the people that pay taxes so we have programs like this get no representation like this. Is it that incredibly hard to stay clean so you pass your test and then you can resume your addiction? Come the fuck on.
They get to avoid it because it's unconstitutional! If you are upset that they haven't declared drug tests in the workplace unconstitutional, I would advise getting the ACLU to start building that case, instead of just ignoring this case and favoring drug tests for welfare recipients.
This will make all drug users on welfare stop doing drugs for sure. Thats how drugs work, you just stop when ever you want.
And the few people who chose to stay on drugs will off course completely disappear and no longer be a burden to society. I am sure they will not turn to a life of crime. Pretty sure no scientific studies prove anything like that.
And since we gonna overrule the 4th amendment with this, I think it opens the doors for us starting to do drug tests and alcohol tests at schools also. Imagine all that money we gonna make on fines from those silly kids. Kids will just have to grow the fuck up and be mature and responsible, just like i am sure every single one of us was.
Why stop their though, lets do it to people on pensions also, that will teach them to be old and a burden to society.
And just cause the Governor stands to gain huge amounts of money from this, does not mean it is not because he really cares. I am sure these poor people on welfare tested positive will receive payed for options for treatment. Since we determined they need help would be really fucking cruel not to offer help after all. Not very Christian at all. And since the governor is such a good Christian man, constantly talking about the bible guiding him. I am positive he will not just leave people to rot on the streets.
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
If you haven't already (for whatever reason) please READ the article and THE THREAD before you post
Few things to point out.
1) Drug test's aren't free, thus "saving tax payer money" is at best a misnomer, and more appropriately a lie (or marketing). Drug testing thousands of people is not going to save anyone money. It's probably cheaper to let them use drugs.
2) Not everyone on welfare does drugs. A large portion perhaps (unknowable), but never the less, many of these people receiving benefits have children who have committed no crime except to be born to the (apparently) wrong parents.
3) Drug testing parolee's and ex-cons doesn't stop them from using/beating the test, and neither will this
4) And to the quoted poster, I suggest you read 1984 before spouting such off ridiculous non-sense. Remember it's better to say nothing, and have others assume you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I don't get it.
Back on topic:
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable.
While I agree with you, the legislation simply isn't fully justifiable otherwise there would be no discussion to the contrary. I can argue rather successfully that this would wind up costing the state more money, and possible screw people out of their benefits. Let's be frank I don't really care for most unemployed people, it's the mom with 6 kids who now has stand in line to piss in a cup twice a week to barely feed them.
I disagree $42 is much cheaper than just handing out drug addicts checks that are at minimum 5 times that amount. Ones that claim children and it goes up exponentially. They way I see it though is that this is good for Florida. With a demand of 150,000+ recipients needing to get drug tested opens up employment opportunities for people that live there. You can take the Certified Professional Collections Trainer course for about $150. it's a 7 hour course. It opens opportunities to get a job making over 30k a year. I don't think this is a bad situation for anyone.
With this reasoning, everyone should throw their garbage directly in the street: the government could then hire thousand of workers to keep the streets clean and it would create new jobs ! Win/win situation !
You can't just say that drug testing costs are only 42$ per person and in the same breath say that new jobs at 30k a year will have to be created to administer the same tests. You have to take every factor in the equation. And it's not as if they will be testing people once in a lifetime either. This program will implement regular and frequent testing, thus the cost/benefit ratio will radically shoot down once the hypothetical free riders are all denied welfare because then you'll only be testing the clean people.
Like I said above if I have to drug test for a job because I want to make money then welfare should have to test to make money also. Of course not this will hopefully be a long term thing for people interested in the medical field. No hopefully the clean ones will get jobs since they can pass a drug screen like anyone else. There are jobs that don't test also like restaurants maybe construction. So this entire thing is avoidable if they are embarrassed or on drugs. Can seek treatment also to get clean. Can't even begin to calculate the tax revenue these jobs will create. It all works out.
What's your point ? That the people who are already jobless and smoking crack will get a job as a construction worker if they are scared of losing their benefits ? Your posts doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
1) A huge proportion of welfare recipients do not consume drugs or if they do, they will just switch to alcohol or find ways to circumvent the tests, just like stoners have been doing for the better part of 30 years.
2) Testing these people is really stupid and wasteful.
3) The ones who get caught will have to resort to other means of income. The difference between you and I is that I know for sure that for the vast majority of the people comprised in this category, gainful employment won't be an option. And what if the people who get caught have kids ? Do their kids also need to suffer (more) crushing poverty because the middle class needs to feel good about teaching the shiftless bums a lesson about the worth of money ?
4) From a strict monetary perspective, this is doomed to fail. It would surprise me that the governement cuts enough people to upset the costs of mandatory, regular testing of the whole Florida population that is on welfare and we're not talking about the other costs (police, homeless shelters, etc.). This is just shifting the burden elsewhere.
And as a final point, I live in Quebec, which is basicall a socialist heaven and even here, drug rehab programs are underfunded and understaffed. They can't follow the demand and with my experience with Florida, these services are most assuredly in a more abyssmal state over there.
It would be nice if people were able to reconcile with the notion that the "welfare clientele" even if they are drug users are people nonetheless and that we should strive to help them get out of their misery instead of oppressing them even more with ridiculous measures such as this.
It's not the state's fault the parents resort to drugs. If they CHOOSE to go down that road, then it is THEIR fault their kids will not eat. Perhaps some responsibility will arise within the parent's life...
If someone truly wants to quit something in order to survive, they will. I just don't understand these arguments of-- OH MY God Think of the Children!!! That card has been played enough in these debates.
On June 11 2011 02:12 Titan107 wrote: It's not the state's fault the parents resort to drugs. If they CHOOSE to go down that road, then it is THEIR fault their kids will not eat. Perhaps some responsibility will arise within the parent's life...
Bodes well for these kids future ! Going hungry and possibly homeless because daddy is a drug addict.
And yes, every drug user on welfare is a potential millionnaire that is too irresponsible to realize his true potential. And people universally choose to do drugs or not. They totally don't get addicted or use them to escape their already shitty reality.
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
If you haven't already (for whatever reason) please READ the article and THE THREAD before you post
Few things to point out.
1) Drug test's aren't free, thus "saving tax payer money" is at best a misnomer, and more appropriately a lie (or marketing). Drug testing thousands of people is not going to save anyone money. It's probably cheaper to let them use drugs.
2) Not everyone on welfare does drugs. A large portion perhaps (unknowable), but never the less, many of these people receiving benefits have children who have committed no crime except to be born to the (apparently) wrong parents.
3) Drug testing parolee's and ex-cons doesn't stop them from using/beating the test, and neither will this
4) And to the quoted poster, I suggest you read 1984 before spouting such off ridiculous non-sense. Remember it's better to say nothing, and have others assume you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable.
While I agree with you, the legislation simply isn't fully justifiable otherwise there would be no discussion to the contrary. I can argue rather successfully that this would wind up costing the state more money, and possible screw people out of their benefits. Let's be frank I don't really care for most unemployed people, it's the mom with 6 kids who now has stand in line to piss in a cup twice a week to barely feed them.
She shouldn't have had six fucking kids in the first place if she can't afford to pay for them. Reality is a bitch. Life is cruel, I'm sorry.
So what's wrong with it? If you are innocent then you won't mind giving a drug test for the help. I don't know why some people are mad about stopping people from abusing the system. I makes no sense for this not to be a required process(in every state) for receiving FREE MONEY. I don't know about anyone else, but if my taxes are going to go to people that need help anyways, why not have some of the money go to making sure the right people get the help. So they turn to alcohol, and smoking. There are ways to monitor that too. Again, if the taxes are going to go out no matter what, make it legit.
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
If you haven't already (for whatever reason) please READ the article and THE THREAD before you post
Few things to point out.
1) Drug test's aren't free, thus "saving tax payer money" is at best a misnomer, and more appropriately a lie (or marketing). Drug testing thousands of people is not going to save anyone money. It's probably cheaper to let them use drugs.
2) Not everyone on welfare does drugs. A large portion perhaps (unknowable), but never the less, many of these people receiving benefits have children who have committed no crime except to be born to the (apparently) wrong parents.
3) Drug testing parolee's and ex-cons doesn't stop them from using/beating the test, and neither will this
4) And to the quoted poster, I suggest you read 1984 before spouting such off ridiculous non-sense. Remember it's better to say nothing, and have others assume you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I don't get it.
Back on topic:
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable.
While I agree with you, the legislation simply isn't fully justifiable otherwise there would be no discussion to the contrary. I can argue rather successfully that this would wind up costing the state more money, and possible screw people out of their benefits. Let's be frank I don't really care for most unemployed people, it's the mom with 6 kids who now has stand in line to piss in a cup twice a week to barely feed them.
She shouldn't have had six fucking kids in the first place if she can't afford to pay for them. Reality is a bitch. Life is cruel, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, but if you are posting on an internet forum about a video game on a Friday afternoon, I don't think you have experienced the cruelty of going hungry because your ass is addicted to drugs and middle-class wankers needed to feel good by stripping you of the meager amount they pay out.
Do I think it is right for many to use welfare as a way to subisdize their drug use ? No. Do I think that forcing them into even more poverty is the solution to the problem ? Hell no.
On June 11 2011 02:29 BRaegO wrote: So what's wrong with it? If you are innocent then you won't mind giving a drug test for the help. I don't know why some people are mad about stopping people from abusing the system. I makes no sense for this not to be a required process(in every state) for receiving FREE MONEY. I don't know about anyone else, but if my taxes are going to go to people that need help anyways, why not have some of the money go to making sure the right people get the help. So they turn to alcohol, and smoking. There are ways to monitor that too. Again, if the taxes are going to go out no matter what, make it legit.
Where does it say that the program is intended to help ? Welfare will just stop giving them money and the governement hope that they magically turn into productive citizens while they will probably turn to crime or working side jobs from time time, all the while evading taxes.
On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Yes, I thought you were trying to exclude the kind of street criminal who is committing crimes out of necessity when you brought up mafia members. I was trying to argue that street criminals commit crime out of necessity; my bad if you interpreted it some other way. And I believe that a solution to this is to keep giving them welfare, even if they use drugs!
I'd propose the solution that anyone who cannot pass a drug test be provided access to centers where they can get food, shelter, clothing, drug counseling, etc.
No cash unless you can pass a drug test. Sound reasonable?
On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Why should we incentivize these people to stop doing drugs by making their lives so shitty they have no other choice? If they think a drug addicted life on welfare is better than going to rehab, I find it hard to believe the problem is that the drug addicted life on welfare is too good, and that we should take away the welfare! I think approaching the problem like this will make it a lot harder to solve, but a lot more rewarding and with a much better long term prognosis.
I don't think they consider the drug addicted life on welfare "too good", but apparently, it's "good enough" that they are willing to continue it.
I don't think proposing different solutions is in the scope of this discussion. I'm much more interested in arguing against what is currently going down in Florida. I wouldn't really like what you proposed either, but it's certainly better than what the Florida legislatures came up with.
And they think the drug addicted life is better than life in rehab, right? I doubt they think their life is better than, oh, Dirk Nowitzki's, but still better than checking into a drug treatment facility. The solution to this is to make drug treatment facilities better, not to make the drug addicted life worse, and that is something I can get behind wholeheartedly. I also don't find the drug addicted life being good enough to willingly continue it a problem, and even if you think it is a problem, it's not one that should be solved with a "quit or starve" ultimatum.
Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.
ACLU is hilarious. Why do I have to take a drug test for a job but welfare applicants get to avoid it? Funny how the people that pay taxes so we have programs like this get no representation like this. Is it that incredibly hard to stay clean so you pass your test and then you can resume your addiction? Come the fuck on.
They get to avoid it because it's unconstitutional! If you are upset that they haven't declared drug tests in the workplace unconstitutional, I would advise getting the ACLU to start building that case, instead of just ignoring this case and favoring drug tests for welfare recipients.
The constitution does not guarantee government aid. The constitution does not guarantee a job if it did then we wouldn't need government aid.
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
If you haven't already (for whatever reason) please READ the article and THE THREAD before you post
Few things to point out.
1) Drug test's aren't free, thus "saving tax payer money" is at best a misnomer, and more appropriately a lie (or marketing). Drug testing thousands of people is not going to save anyone money. It's probably cheaper to let them use drugs.
2) Not everyone on welfare does drugs. A large portion perhaps (unknowable), but never the less, many of these people receiving benefits have children who have committed no crime except to be born to the (apparently) wrong parents.
3) Drug testing parolee's and ex-cons doesn't stop them from using/beating the test, and neither will this
4) And to the quoted poster, I suggest you read 1984 before spouting such off ridiculous non-sense. Remember it's better to say nothing, and have others assume you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I don't get it.
Back on topic:
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable.
While I agree with you, the legislation simply isn't fully justifiable otherwise there would be no discussion to the contrary. I can argue rather successfully that this would wind up costing the state more money, and possible screw people out of their benefits. Let's be frank I don't really care for most unemployed people, it's the mom with 6 kids who now has stand in line to piss in a cup twice a week to barely feed them.
She shouldn't have had six fucking kids in the first place if she can't afford to pay for them. Reality is a bitch. Life is cruel, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, but if you are posting on an internet forum about a video game on a Friday afternoon, I don't think you have experienced the cruelty of going hungry because your ass is addicted to drugs and middle-class wankers needed to feel good by stripping you of the meager amount they pay out.
Do I think it is right for many to use welfare as a way to subisdize their drug use ? No. Do I think that forcing them into even more poverty is the solution to the problem ? Hell no.
Foregone conclusion. In my youth, my parents were poor as shit. I worked manual labor for half of my life then used the military to afford higher education and everything else. I'm still poor as shit, easily a candidate for government hand outs but I refuse to stoop so low.
No one should be given money for doing nothing. Period. Welfare is absolute bullshit on so many levels. Besides, the so called "poor" in the west have more going for them then everyone in third world countries.
You're right about the middle class being wankers, many of them think they owe the world something because "they won life's jackpot" ie they were born into a higher class and got lucky. Bullshit. I've worked my ass off my entire life and I get to watch helplessly as big brother gives my hard earned money to lazy assholes who don't use condoms and who dabbled in substance abuse.
Actions have consequences: Don't do drugs. Don't have kids that you can't afford. Don't buy things you can't afford. The list goes on...
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
If you haven't already (for whatever reason) please READ the article and THE THREAD before you post
Few things to point out.
1) Drug test's aren't free, thus "saving tax payer money" is at best a misnomer, and more appropriately a lie (or marketing). Drug testing thousands of people is not going to save anyone money. It's probably cheaper to let them use drugs.
2) Not everyone on welfare does drugs. A large portion perhaps (unknowable), but never the less, many of these people receiving benefits have children who have committed no crime except to be born to the (apparently) wrong parents.
3) Drug testing parolee's and ex-cons doesn't stop them from using/beating the test, and neither will this
4) And to the quoted poster, I suggest you read 1984 before spouting such off ridiculous non-sense. Remember it's better to say nothing, and have others assume you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I don't get it.
Back on topic:
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable.
While I agree with you, the legislation simply isn't fully justifiable otherwise there would be no discussion to the contrary. I can argue rather successfully that this would wind up costing the state more money, and possible screw people out of their benefits. Let's be frank I don't really care for most unemployed people, it's the mom with 6 kids who now has stand in line to piss in a cup twice a week to barely feed them.
She shouldn't have had six fucking kids in the first place if she can't afford to pay for them. Reality is a bitch. Life is cruel, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, but if you are posting on an internet forum about a video game on a Friday afternoon, I don't think you have experienced the cruelty of going hungry because your ass is addicted to drugs and middle-class wankers needed to feel good by stripping you of the meager amount they pay out.
Do I think it is right for many to use welfare as a way to subisdize their drug use ? No. Do I think that forcing them into even more poverty is the solution to the problem ? Hell no.
Get off your high horse. I couldn't care less if she is going hungry. It is her fault in the first place, quit trying to blame the 'middle class' I have worked my butt off to get where I am, and I am in no way comfortable and don't feel people should be leeching of me because the system is stupid. The only people to feel sorry for is the kids that are in that bad situation through no choice of their own. There needs to be a solution on helping the kids get out of that area and show them that they can be a contributing member of society instead of just letting everyone else take care of them.
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
If you haven't already (for whatever reason) please READ the article and THE THREAD before you post
Few things to point out.
1) Drug test's aren't free, thus "saving tax payer money" is at best a misnomer, and more appropriately a lie (or marketing). Drug testing thousands of people is not going to save anyone money. It's probably cheaper to let them use drugs.
2) Not everyone on welfare does drugs. A large portion perhaps (unknowable), but never the less, many of these people receiving benefits have children who have committed no crime except to be born to the (apparently) wrong parents.
3) Drug testing parolee's and ex-cons doesn't stop them from using/beating the test, and neither will this
4) And to the quoted poster, I suggest you read 1984 before spouting such off ridiculous non-sense. Remember it's better to say nothing, and have others assume you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I don't get it.
Back on topic:
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable.
While I agree with you, the legislation simply isn't fully justifiable otherwise there would be no discussion to the contrary. I can argue rather successfully that this would wind up costing the state more money, and possible screw people out of their benefits. Let's be frank I don't really care for most unemployed people, it's the mom with 6 kids who now has stand in line to piss in a cup twice a week to barely feed them.
I disagree $42 is much cheaper than just handing out drug addicts checks that are at minimum 5 times that amount. Ones that claim children and it goes up exponentially. They way I see it though is that this is good for Florida. With a demand of 150,000+ recipients needing to get drug tested opens up employment opportunities for people that live there. You can take the Certified Professional Collections Trainer course for about $150. it's a 7 hour course. It opens opportunities to get a job making over 30k a year. I don't think this is a bad situation for anyone.
With this reasoning, everyone should throw their garbage directly in the street: the government could then hire thousand of workers to keep the streets clean and it would create new jobs ! Win/win situation !
You can't just say that drug testing costs are only 42$ per person and in the same breath say that new jobs at 30k a year will have to be created to administer the same tests. You have to take every factor in the equation. And it's not as if they will be testing people once in a lifetime either. This program will implement regular and frequent testing, thus the cost/benefit ratio will radically shoot down once the hypothetical free riders are all denied welfare because then you'll only be testing the clean people.
Like I said above if I have to drug test for a job because I want to make money then welfare should have to test to make money also. Of course not this will hopefully be a long term thing for people interested in the medical field. No hopefully the clean ones will get jobs since they can pass a drug screen like anyone else. There are jobs that don't test also like restaurants maybe construction. So this entire thing is avoidable if they are embarrassed or on drugs. Can seek treatment also to get clean. Can't even begin to calculate the tax revenue these jobs will create. It all works out.
What's your point ? That the people who are already jobless and smoking crack will get a job as a construction worker if they are scared of losing their benefits ? Your posts doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
1) A huge proportion of welfare recipients do not consume drugs or if they do, they will just switch to alcohol or find ways to circumvent the tests, just like stoners have been doing for the better part of 30 years.
2) Testing these people is really stupid and wasteful.
3) The ones who get caught will have to resort to other means of income. The difference between you and I is that I know for sure that for the vast majority of the people comprised in this category, gainful employment won't be an option. And what if the people who get caught have kids ? Do their kids also need to suffer (more) crushing poverty because the middle class needs to feel good about teaching the shiftless bums a lesson about the worth of money ?
4) From a strict monetary perspective, this is doomed to fail. It would surprise me that the governement cuts enough people to upset the costs of mandatory, regular testing of the whole Florida population that is on welfare and we're not talking about the other costs (police, homeless shelters, etc.). This is just shifting the burden elsewhere.
And as a final point, I live in Quebec, which is basicall a socialist heaven and even here, drug rehab programs are underfunded and understaffed. They can't follow the demand and with my experience with Florida, these services are most assuredly in a more abyssmal state over there.
It would be nice if people were able to reconcile with the notion that the "welfare clientele" even if they are drug users are people nonetheless and that we should strive to help them get out of their misery instead of oppressing them even more with ridiculous measures such as this.
If you read the article a lot of your questions are answered. Hey we all make choices with our lives and if you choose drugs then sucks to be you. $42 is cheaper than giving someone a check so they can get high then maybe commit crimes since a welfare check isn't gonna fuel a crack habit. Maybe when they injure someone or themselves we should pick up the tab on that hospital bill or maybe if they don't die their time in jail also. Meh the person has to decide they want to change. Rehab programs don't do shit if the person wants to continue using and if they do why do I want to give them assistance when it won't be enough money anyway? To them I say get a job.
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
If you haven't already (for whatever reason) please READ the article and THE THREAD before you post
Few things to point out.
1) Drug test's aren't free, thus "saving tax payer money" is at best a misnomer, and more appropriately a lie (or marketing). Drug testing thousands of people is not going to save anyone money. It's probably cheaper to let them use drugs.
2) Not everyone on welfare does drugs. A large portion perhaps (unknowable), but never the less, many of these people receiving benefits have children who have committed no crime except to be born to the (apparently) wrong parents.
3) Drug testing parolee's and ex-cons doesn't stop them from using/beating the test, and neither will this
4) And to the quoted poster, I suggest you read 1984 before spouting such off ridiculous non-sense. Remember it's better to say nothing, and have others assume you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I don't get it.
Back on topic:
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable.
While I agree with you, the legislation simply isn't fully justifiable otherwise there would be no discussion to the contrary. I can argue rather successfully that this would wind up costing the state more money, and possible screw people out of their benefits. Let's be frank I don't really care for most unemployed people, it's the mom with 6 kids who now has stand in line to piss in a cup twice a week to barely feed them.
She shouldn't have had six fucking kids in the first place if she can't afford to pay for them. Reality is a bitch. Life is cruel, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, but if you are posting on an internet forum about a video game on a Friday afternoon, I don't think you have experienced the cruelty of going hungry because your ass is addicted to drugs and middle-class wankers needed to feel good by stripping you of the meager amount they pay out.
Do I think it is right for many to use welfare as a way to subisdize their drug use ? No. Do I think that forcing them into even more poverty is the solution to the problem ? Hell no.
Get off your high horse. I couldn't care less if she is going hungry. It is her fault in the first place, quit trying to blame the 'middle class' I have worked my butt off to get where I am, and I am in no way comfortable and don't feel people should be leeching of me because the system is stupid. The only people to feel sorry for is the kids that are in that bad situation through no choice of their own. There needs to be a solution on helping the kids get out of that area and show them that they can be a contributing member of society instead of just letting everyone else take care of them.
I couldn't care less if she is going hungry. Stay classy home of the free land of the brave.
Picture that woman in your head and picture yourself telling her that to her face. Where is your empathy ? Putting aside the ovious problems such laws pose, this attitude "of I worked really hard so I get to look down on other people" I cannot comprehend. Would you take kindly to more successful individuals doing the same to you if you ever fall down on your luck ?
This kind of legislation serves no other purpose but to please the right wing middle class voter base. This will save no money whatsoever and even if it did, do you really think your average joe schmoe taxpayer will benefit from it ?
On June 11 2011 02:12 Titan107 wrote: It's not the state's fault the parents resort to drugs. If they CHOOSE to go down that road, then it is THEIR fault their kids will not eat. Perhaps some responsibility will arise within the parent's life...
Bodes well for these kids future ! Going hungry and possibly homeless because daddy is a drug addict.
And yes, every drug user on welfare is a potential millionnaire that is too irresponsible to realize his true potential. And people universally choose to do drugs or not. They totally don't get addicted or use them to escape their already shitty reality.
All I hear is "Think of the Children" and "it's not my fault." Well guess what, if you choose to do drugs and get addicted then its your fault. The state isn't making you do it, you are. I don't understand your argument whatsoever. Sounds like you have a soft spot for people who are addicted to drugs... most likely you have been in that situation.
On June 11 2011 02:12 Titan107 wrote: It's not the state's fault the parents resort to drugs. If they CHOOSE to go down that road, then it is THEIR fault their kids will not eat. Perhaps some responsibility will arise within the parent's life...
Bodes well for these kids future ! Going hungry and possibly homeless because daddy is a drug addict.
And yes, every drug user on welfare is a potential millionnaire that is too irresponsible to realize his true potential. And people universally choose to do drugs or not. They totally don't get addicted or use them to escape their already shitty reality.
All I hear is "Think of the Children" and "it's not my fault." Well guess what, if you choose to do drugs and get addicted then its your fault. The state isn't making you do it, you are. I don't understand your argument whatsoever. Sounds like you have a soft spot for people who are addicted to drugs... most likely you have been in that situation.
This is where we disagree. Drug use is very often not something willingly people choose to do. A lot of the heavy addicts have either: a) Started at a young age b) Underlying mental illnesses that they self medicate through it.
Heavy drug use is more often than not the product of your upringing and social status. Pretty much the only segment of the population that willingly chooses to do drugs, as in "let's try coke for fun!" is comprised of recreationnal users and I very much doubt such measures will put more than a dent in the money paid out to these people: they will find ways to circumvent the tests or simply stop, but I'd wager my life savings that the % of people who choose to give up will be meager compared to those who will just cheat.
I do have a soft spot for people who are down on their luck, even if it is because of their very own actions because I recognize that they are human nonetheless and that it is in the human nature to often make shit decisions.
I have never taken any drugs in my life, but I know from firsthand experience the damage it can do not only to the user, but to its whole family from volunteering in drug shelters. I have tried to help people who were 19 and junkies for the better part of their teens. It's heartbreaking. I wouldn't have the guts to say "that's your own dumb fault" to them.
It makes sense. They have to make a choice. Continue in my addiction or continue getting welfare. Granted they may just resort to violence then. There's no easy answer, it's messy.
Sounds reasonable to do random drug tests on welface recipients. However, testing everyone would probably cost too much money, so just test randomly. Some people will get caught, others will be discouraged from drugs due to fear of getting caught.
I have a solution. For those who fail the drug screening, offer them a free one-way ticket to the EU country of their choosing, where they will be entitled to so much more than they are in this terrible, terrible, uncaring U.S. of A. They will have actual rights to things, that were merely privileges in the U.S. People are so much happier in Europe.
[QUOTE]On June 11 2011 03:55 Billyray wrote: [QUOTE]On June 11 2011 03:32 Titan107 wrote: [QUOTE]On June 11 2011 02:16 Billyray wrote: [QUOTE]On June 11 2011 02:12 Titan107 wrote: It's not the state's fault the parents resort to drugs. If they CHOOSE to go down that road, then it is THEIR fault their kids will not eat. Perhaps some responsibility will arise within the parent's life...
[/QUOTE] It's heartbreaking. I wouldn't have the guts to say "that's your own dumb fault" to them. [/QUOTE]
Someone has to.
My brother was on the verge of death from taking shrooms and has done everything there is. Also, my older brother went through the same ordeal minus the death experience. However, both are now married with children and have come out of that lifestyle in order to have a stable life.
A future is possible if the person TRULY has the will to get better. I just don't buy the "I'm addicted and I wanna quit--- but I smoked pot the other day and broke my promise." No. Sure, its tough to stop an addiction, but the Will to fix yourself goes further than addiction.
Fight or Flight for the drug takers.
Drugs prescribed by medication are an entirely different subject.
On June 11 2011 04:03 Kaitlin wrote: I have a solution. For those who fail the drug screening, offer them a free one-way ticket to the EU country of their choosing, where they will be entitled to so much more than they are in this terrible, terrible, uncaring U.S. of A. They will have actual rights to things, that were merely privileges in the U.S. People are so much happier in Europe.
I know you're trying to make a point about the kindness of those in the U.S. but that's really the solution you're going to throw out here to contribute to the conversation? And what kind of rights to things are you talking about, I'm genuinely wondering what the differences are.
Well, I read someone say that people had a right for the government to support them when they didn't have a job. In the U.S., it's not a right, but a privilege, so that's a start.
[QUOTE]On June 11 2011 04:18 Titan107 wrote: [QUOTE]On June 11 2011 03:55 Billyray wrote: [QUOTE]On June 11 2011 03:32 Titan107 wrote: [QUOTE]On June 11 2011 02:16 Billyray wrote: [QUOTE]On June 11 2011 02:12 Titan107 wrote: It's not the state's fault the parents resort to drugs. If they CHOOSE to go down that road, then it is THEIR fault their kids will not eat. Perhaps some responsibility will arise within the parent's life...
[/QUOTE] It's heartbreaking. I wouldn't have the guts to say "that's your own dumb fault" to them. [/QUOTE]
Someone has to.
My brother was on the verge of death from taking shrooms and has done everything there is. Also, my older brother went through the same ordeal minus the death experience. However, both are now married with children and have come out of that lifestyle in order to have a stable life.
A future is possible if the person TRULY has the will to get better. I just don't buy the "I'm addicted and I wanna quit--- but I smoked pot the other day and broke my promise." No. Sure, its tough to stop an addiction, but the Will to fix yourself goes further than addiction.
Fight or Flight for the drug takers.
Drugs prescribed by medication are an entirely different subject.[/QUOTE]
Your brother is one of the lucky ones. I have no doubt that you played a huge role in him getting better but do you see where I am getting at ? Stripping people from their welfare benefits because of drug use won't help the ones who are already off in the deep end and might push others into. At what costs ? Possible money savings that will never materialize because drug testing thousands of people isn't exactly free ?
If there are two things that are needed for rehabilitation to be possible, they are: a) The desire from within to change (not gonna happen if you cut funding...) b) A support group, meaning family nd friends (again, not gonna happen).
Your brother had both. A can be had by anyone, and many addicts do desire to change, but they lack b. Someone who cares. You have to realize that the welfare existence isn't one rife with options. We are going off on a tagent here, but a huge proportion of hard drug users have either alienated themselves from family, have families who are also heavy drug users or were alone to begin with. It's not by leaving them to fend for themselves with no money that we will finally beat this problem, just as much as it is not by cutting welfare that people will go on the job market again. That's just a recipe for shifting trouble around. We have to solve the underlying issues because being on welfare isn't the problem, it's a symptom: better education and better jobs would be a start. A lot of people who are depending on welfare aren't exactly grade-A material for prospective employers and in an economy that is in a slump, I don't know how they are supposed to pull themselves by the bootstraps and get a job without the necessary tools to achieve.
I find it hysterical that the people most adamantly opposed to the government giving aid to poor people are the people who would be most helped by it, but choose to have to work 10x as hard as most people do to still be poor.
Look, I understand that you yourself have worked very hard, did manual labor, joined the army, and are now earning 30k a year. That's quite an accomplishment (no sarcasm), but myself and other people who have been born in slightly better situations want to help you and others out, and all you do is go "MY LIFE IS SO HARD FUCK THOSE DRUG ADDLED BITCHES WITH 6 CHILDREN"
Give it a rest with your pride and let people help others out ffs. It's not even like the argument against drug testing is that we want to give money to drug addicts, the main issue is that it's probably not even economically viable.
Also Titan I don't know your particular situation but comparing your brothers who were addicted to hallucinogens while probably living in the suburbs to someone hooked on crack in the projects isn't really a good comparison, lol.
I doubt this will be interpreted as unconstitutional - it's already completely standard for a drug test to be required for employment, what's wrong with it being required for welfare? (Source of money to do these tests nonwithstanding - where the money is coming from doesnt have a ton to do with the constitutionality of it. The tests are getting pretty cheap now too.)
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.
So the honest people pee in a cup every once in a while, and come up clean. Have to do it to get most jobs anyway. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if it cuts down in government spending due to people not collecting their welfare checks because they can't pass the test.
If people start giving up drugs in favor of having a welfare check, then this is accomplishing what it needs to. And, unlike many other tactics against drug abuse, I can see this one working, because it will create additional peer pressure to clean up, rather than law enforcement being the only thing to deter people from drug abuse. (Law enforcement is pretty damn ineffective against drug abuse.)
Honestly, I think this is a bad idea. All you're doing is putting people who are already in a desperate situation into a more desperate one. I think it's pretty clear what happens when you back people into a corner; they either give up or fight. In this case fighting means crime, and giving up means... well giving up.
Good tests aren't that cheap. That's why you only see large corporations employing them. Of course the state would like to drug test welfare recipients if it can force them to pay for it, cause that's really an appropriate way to force people to spend their money when they don't have any. Just wait and see the scams that will arise when people are "getting money for the children". All I see are a bunch of judgmental people happy to see that the state is telling the poor how to live their lives, as if their lives weren't already shitty enough. Being on welfare isn't a choice, and neither is a drug addiction. If you haven't been addicted then you don't know, I don't care if you had a brother who blah blah blah it doesn't make a shred of difference if you've never been there yourself.
People will cheat, the ones who are already scamming welfare anyways, and this will do nothing but cause life to take an even bigger shit on people who never had a chance in the first place. Continue enjoying your privilege, whilst being ignorant of life outside of your little box. The world isn't a perfect place where you get your bread after a fair day's work, it just is for some people. That is all.
P.S. People don't know how easy it is to bypass a drug test (they can only test for marijuana unless they are using hair strands, which is prohibitively expensive atm), so yeah this is aimed exclusively at pot smokers who don't know how to protect themselves. I'm sure that having the homeless sink all their welfare into alcohol instead of pot will solve all of Florida's problems. Lol.
On June 11 2011 04:56 d.o.c wrote: Honestly, I think this is a bad idea. All you're doing is putting people who are already in a desperate situation into a more desperate one. I think it's pretty clear what happens when you back people into a corner; they either give up or fight. In this case fighting means crime, and giving up means... well giving up.
No, people, when people who are addicted to drugs get financially cornered and beaten down they finally go "by golly, I was living a foolish life, let's now search the paper for gainful employment and kick this decadent habit of crack smoking". True story.
I don't understand what's unconstitutional about this. Can someone explain how it's unconstitutional?
While I can understand how we shouldn't be paying for people's illegal drugs, I don't understand how we should be paying for people's drug tests. But then I don't know if this would save money or waste it. I have no idea.
Your brother is one of the lucky ones. I have no doubt that you played a huge role in him getting better but do you see where I am getting at ? Stripping people from their welfare benefits because of drug use won't help the ones who are already off in the deep end and might push others into. At what costs ? Possible money savings that will never materialize because drug testing thousands of people isn't exactly free ?
However you think spending our money on people who are "off in the deep end" is worth the taxpayer's money? Why would this push others into it? I completely don't understand your train of logic.
No, people, when people who are addicted to drugs get financially cornered and beaten down they finally go "by golly, I was living a foolish life, let's now search the paper for gainful employment and kick this decadent habit of crack smoking". True story.
So what would you suggest? Because giving them more money doesn't sound very practical either. This has the potential to cut off income to drug traders which would actually be a more longterm solution.
So the honest people pee in a cup every once in a while, and come up clean. Have to do it to get most jobs anyway. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if it cuts down in government spending due to people not collecting their welfare checks because they can't pass the test.
How do you figure those people will get their money to live now ?
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do.
If you haven't already (for whatever reason) please READ the article and THE THREAD before you post
Few things to point out.
1) Drug test's aren't free, thus "saving tax payer money" is at best a misnomer, and more appropriately a lie (or marketing). Drug testing thousands of people is not going to save anyone money. It's probably cheaper to let them use drugs.
2) Not everyone on welfare does drugs. A large portion perhaps (unknowable), but never the less, many of these people receiving benefits have children who have committed no crime except to be born to the (apparently) wrong parents.
3) Drug testing parolee's and ex-cons doesn't stop them from using/beating the test, and neither will this
4) And to the quoted poster, I suggest you read 1984 before spouting such off ridiculous non-sense. Remember it's better to say nothing, and have others assume you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I don't get it.
Back on topic:
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable.
While I agree with you, the legislation simply isn't fully justifiable otherwise there would be no discussion to the contrary. I can argue rather successfully that this would wind up costing the state more money, and possible screw people out of their benefits. Let's be frank I don't really care for most unemployed people, it's the mom with 6 kids who now has stand in line to piss in a cup twice a week to barely feed them.
She shouldn't have had six fucking kids in the first place if she can't afford to pay for them. Reality is a bitch. Life is cruel, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, but if you are posting on an internet forum about a video game on a Friday afternoon, I don't think you have experienced the cruelty of going hungry because your ass is addicted to drugs and middle-class wankers needed to feel good by stripping you of the meager amount they pay out.
Do I think it is right for many to use welfare as a way to subisdize their drug use ? No. Do I think that forcing them into even more poverty is the solution to the problem ? Hell no.
Get off your high horse. I couldn't care less if she is going hungry. It is her fault in the first place, quit trying to blame the 'middle class' I have worked my butt off to get where I am, and I am in no way comfortable and don't feel people should be leeching of me because the system is stupid. The only people to feel sorry for is the kids that are in that bad situation through no choice of their own. There needs to be a solution on helping the kids get out of that area and show them that they can be a contributing member of society instead of just letting everyone else take care of them.
so then i could care less if you die. because it would be your fault. oh wait...thats not exactly completely true, as ur not able to control EVERY aspect that influenced u dying.
look, i think the idea that this might help addicted people get off drugs, or that it might save alot of money since the wellfare money isnt wasted, is a great idea. however the problem lies in the fact that it might just not do what its intended to do. Think about the mentality of people that are addicted to drugs. They are capable of doing alot of shit, and whos to say that they wont just end up getting clean piss from someone or find away to avoid the system the way alot of people avoid the system when they apply for jobs. So my gripe is that this might not help much at all and actually end up costing more money while saving a little....
And also, to those people saying they dont care about people going hungry and because its their own fault....thats not entirely true. You just can't generalize like that. Take myself for example, my mom came to this country (usa) with 13000 dollars to make us a better life. Worked under a legal persons name (whom she was exploited by to collect social security for themselves, but i digress) , always paid taxes under the persons name, and had a 8 dollar an hour job. She manages to buy a house everything is going well and she does all of this for me, so that i can get a better education and be someone in life. Well, she ends up getting harrassed at work, in other words her boss was trying to have sex with her and my mother being the strong willed woman she is, never gave in. Despite being scared for her job, however since she worked under a different name she couldn't do anything about it. So what happens next? she gets fired, for that sole reason because believe me no one works harder than my mom. However she was able to get food stamps for us throughout all this, and workers comp as well (i was small but i think by this point she had become a resident) and thank god we were able to get by. Finding another job was not easy and shes gone from temp jobs to post office (hell) to finally a stable job now. However u have NO IDEA how much food stamps helped us out. You now how many times ive eaten rice and beans? how many times my fridge has had nothing but eggs? Food stamps pretty much saved my life, the money she saved on groceries, paid the bills. And now im almost done with college and an engineering career because i get financial aid and im able to maintain a high gpa. I honestly have no idea where i would be if it wasnt for government help. I look around at my old friends , alot of them smoking weed all the time and being lazy not doing shit, some have money and some dont. But in the end its really the individual's decision to use the help for good. the way my mom and i did. I dont mean this to be some sob story, but i want u to understand that not every circumstance is the same. Wellfare programs work, and now instead of having some other poor person in the country, they'll have an extra engineer. food for thought.
On June 11 2011 05:06 DoubleReed wrote: I don't understand what's unconstitutional about this. Can someone explain how it's unconstitutional?
While I can understand how we shouldn't be paying for people's illegal drugs, I don't understand how we should be paying for people's drug tests. But then I don't know if this would save money or waste it. I have no idea.
Your brother is one of the lucky ones. I have no doubt that you played a huge role in him getting better but do you see where I am getting at ? Stripping people from their welfare benefits because of drug use won't help the ones who are already off in the deep end and might push others into. At what costs ? Possible money savings that will never materialize because drug testing thousands of people isn't exactly free ?
However you think spending our money on people who are "off in the deep end" is worth the taxpayer's money? Why would this push others into it? I completely don't understand your train of logic.
As I said times and times again in this thread, I'm not happy* that taxpayers money is squandered on drugs, but it makes me even unhappier to see stupid measures such as this one being propped up as a solution instead of just another feel good measure for the ring wing nutjobs. Especially when there is now way this will actually save anyone any money since GOOD drug tests (not the shitty ones the restaurant manager forces you to pass in order to wash dishes) are incredibly expensive and only the chronic abusers will get caught. You know, the ones who are already an inch away from a life of crime.
* This is actually not all that true. I can't muster enough hate to give a shit how the people in the gutter spend their money, especially when so much of what I give every year is used to scratch the backs of fatcats politicians and their friends.
On June 11 2011 04:56 d.o.c wrote: Honestly, I think this is a bad idea. All you're doing is putting people who are already in a desperate situation into a more desperate one. I think it's pretty clear what happens when you back people into a corner; they either give up or fight. In this case fighting means crime, and giving up means... well giving up.
No, people, when people who are addicted to drugs get financially cornered and beaten down they finally go "by golly, I was living a foolish life, let's now search the paper for gainful employment and kick this decadent habit of crack smoking". True story.
Welfare Floridians needed a nerf, their homeless were mad OP because its sunny all year, NY homeless got the winter to deal with, they have some of the highest HPs on the planet.
As I said times and times again in this thread, I'm not happy* that taxpayers money is squandered on drugs, but it makes me even unhappier to see stupid measures such as this one being propped up as a solution instead of just another feel good measure for the ring wing nutjobs. Especially when there is now way this will actually save anyone any money since GOOD drug tests (not the shitty ones the restaurant manager forces you to pass in order to wash dishes) are incredibly expensive and only the chronic abusers will get caught. You know, the ones who are already an inch away from a life of crime.
* This is actually not all that true. I can't muster enough hate to give a shit how the people in the gutter spend their money, especially when so much of what I give every year is used to scratch the backs of fatcats politicians and their friends.
Oh so you see it more as completely pointless and potentially harmful. That's fair.
On June 10 2011 15:40 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Why stop at welfare? Why not drug test everyone who does anything with the government? Why not drug test everyone who works for the government? Why not drug test everyone who gets benefits from the government? After all, we don't want people sitting on the road, which we have paid for with our tax dollars, to use drugs.
This is incredibly scary from my point of view. It creates an incredibly unethical precedent which can, and most likely will, be used to make it legal for the government to drug test anyone.
Welcome to 1984 Winston...
You think this sets a precedent that Obamacare doesn't ?
How so? And what is "Obamacare"? Is that the new healthcare initiative? I don't I've ever heard it addressed officially as Obamacare.
Why stop at welfare? Why not drug test everyone who does anything with the government? Why not drug test everyone who works for the government? Why not drug test everyone who gets benefits from the government? After all, we don't want people sitting on the road, which we have paid for with our tax dollars, to use drugs.
I'm pretty sure we do drug tests on all government employees, so I'm not really sure what you mean. Many companies require drug tests on all their employees as well. It's not unheard of.
On June 11 2011 02:12 Titan107 wrote: It's not the state's fault the parents resort to drugs. If they CHOOSE to go down that road, then it is THEIR fault their kids will not eat. Perhaps some responsibility will arise within the parent's life...
Bodes well for these kids future ! Going hungry and possibly homeless because daddy is a drug addict.
That is an issue for social services. Odds are if the parents are junkies they are not caring properly for the kids as is, and the social security money will be prioritized for getting their fix first, and food later. The better solution in this case is foster care and more responsible adult supervision for the kids, not government funded subsidization for a junkie's next fix.
On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Yes, I thought you were trying to exclude the kind of street criminal who is committing crimes out of necessity when you brought up mafia members. I was trying to argue that street criminals commit crime out of necessity; my bad if you interpreted it some other way. And I believe that a solution to this is to keep giving them welfare, even if they use drugs!
I'd propose the solution that anyone who cannot pass a drug test be provided access to centers where they can get food, shelter, clothing, drug counseling, etc.
No cash unless you can pass a drug test. Sound reasonable?
On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Why should we incentivize these people to stop doing drugs by making their lives so shitty they have no other choice? If they think a drug addicted life on welfare is better than going to rehab, I find it hard to believe the problem is that the drug addicted life on welfare is too good, and that we should take away the welfare! I think approaching the problem like this will make it a lot harder to solve, but a lot more rewarding and with a much better long term prognosis.
I don't think they consider the drug addicted life on welfare "too good", but apparently, it's "good enough" that they are willing to continue it.
I don't think proposing different solutions is in the scope of this discussion. I'm much more interested in arguing against what is currently going down in Florida. I wouldn't really like what you proposed either, but it's certainly better than what the Florida legislatures came up with.
And they think the drug addicted life is better than life in rehab, right? I doubt they think their life is better than, oh, Dirk Nowitzki's, but still better than checking into a drug treatment facility. The solution to this is to make drug treatment facilities better, not to make the drug addicted life worse, and that is something I can get behind wholeheartedly. I also don't find the drug addicted life being good enough to willingly continue it a problem, and even if you think it is a problem, it's not one that should be solved with a "quit or starve" ultimatum.
Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.
ACLU is hilarious. Why do I have to take a drug test for a job but welfare applicants get to avoid it? Funny how the people that pay taxes so we have programs like this get no representation like this. Is it that incredibly hard to stay clean so you pass your test and then you can resume your addiction? Come the fuck on.
They get to avoid it because it's unconstitutional! If you are upset that they haven't declared drug tests in the workplace unconstitutional, I would advise getting the ACLU to start building that case, instead of just ignoring this case and favoring drug tests for welfare recipients.
The constitution does not guarantee government aid. The constitution does not guarantee a job if it did then we wouldn't need government aid.
and
On June 11 2011 05:06 DoubleReed wrote: I don't understand what's unconstitutional about this. Can someone explain how it's unconstitutional?
and
On June 11 2011 04:52 sylverfyre wrote: I doubt this will be interpreted as unconstitutional - it's already completely standard for a drug test to be required for employment, what's wrong with it being required for welfare? (Source of money to do these tests nonwithstanding - where the money is coming from doesnt have a ton to do with the constitutionality of it. The tests are getting pretty cheap now too.)
I didn't say the constitution guaranteed those things. All I am saying is that this specifically, this being making passing a drug test required to receive welfare, was declared unconstitutional. http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/marchwinskiamicusbrief1_22_01.pdf is the briefing, if you're interested in such things.
On June 11 2011 05:25 mastergriggy wrote: I don't want people getting handed money if they are spending some of it on drugs. Good move by Florida.
Is it ok if, say, they are only smoking drugs their friends give them?
On June 11 2011 02:12 Titan107 wrote: It's not the state's fault the parents resort to drugs. If they CHOOSE to go down that road, then it is THEIR fault their kids will not eat. Perhaps some responsibility will arise within the parent's life...
If someone truly wants to quit something in order to survive, they will. I just don't understand these arguments of-- OH MY God Think of the Children!!! That card has been played enough in these debates.
Yes, "think of the children" is pretty played out, maybe second only to "well if only they had MORE RESPONSIBILITY!!!"
these people are asking the gov't for money and support. and in turn they are expected to follow that gov't's rules.
if you dont want to get tested for doing illegal shit, go stick your hand out somewhere else.
i mean i have to get tested just to keep my job, and i used to get tested all the time in high school, and since im not a criminal, i didnt care at all.
if the druggies are really desperate and want to work the system, just go to prison. free lodging and food.
On June 11 2011 07:27 danson wrote: how is this even a debatable topic?
these people are asking the gov't for money and support. and in turn they are expected to follow that gov't's rules.
if you dont want to get tested for doing illegal shit, go stick your hand out somewhere else.
i mean i have to get tested just to keep my job, and i used to get tested all the time in high school, and since im not a criminal, i didnt care at all.
if the druggies are really desperate and want to work the system, just go to prison. free lodging and food.
I have a feeling that that's where a lot of these people will wind up next :p
On June 11 2011 05:25 mastergriggy wrote: I don't want people getting handed money if they are spending some of it on drugs. Good move by Florida.
But it's fine if they spend it on alcohol, cigarettes, hookers, porn, guns or celebrity magazines ?
You either give someone money or you don't, you don't get to control how they spend it. That's what food stamps are for.
You are overlooking the reason that the money is provided. It is provided to the individual for food and shelter not for drugs or other entertainment. The legally binding documents you need to fill out state that the money provided is for the necessities of life ie. food shelter and it is agreed to with a signature.
You're right you either give them money or you don't. Morally the government is obligated to help those who do not have food or shelter get these needs, it is not obligated to hand over some cash for some weed or a 40oz.
If they are using it for food/shelter then its given to you.
If you are using the money for something other than what you agreed to use it for that is called fraud.
They have no way to track what everyone is using the money for so they are trying to come up with ways to administer the agreements. They know through investigation that a significant percentage of the welfare users are committing fraud and spending the money on drugs contrary to what they agreed to use the provided money for. Their solution is the drug test and policies that exclude drug users from defrauding the program.
I say they should take it one step further and since they have proof of a crime committed they should pass that info to the police and have those who failed the test arrested for possession and use of illegal drugs and fraud for lying to the government to obtain funds for illegal usage.
When word gets around that you can't defraud the welfare dept. for some extra pocket money anymore and get put in jail for it you'll only be left with the honest citizens that really need the help.
This legislation is just an austerity measure. The government simply wants to cut costs and puts in barriers to demotivate citizens to take welfare. Not only that, the politician who introduces this new law will make a nice profit on the drug tests... only in america.
On June 11 2011 07:27 danson wrote: how is this even a debatable topic?
these people are asking the gov't for money and support. and in turn they are expected to follow that gov't's rules.
if you dont want to get tested for doing illegal shit, go stick your hand out somewhere else.
i mean i have to get tested just to keep my job, and i used to get tested all the time in high school, and since im not a criminal, i didnt care at all.
if the druggies are really desperate and want to work the system, just go to prison. free lodging and food.
I have a feeling that that's where a lot of these people will wind up next :p
That's where a lot (of homeless specifically) already are. 3 free meals a day and cable with no need to work or anything. At least in Canada it's that way. I'm aware a great deal of people already are in jail in US.
Tbh, here people can get 5 free meals a day. I'm more then willing to buy someone a sandwich but not give them money to feed their addictions. Why pay for people from the taxpayer's pocket to cover for their addictions? Because they'll resort to crime? They already do.
So the honest people pee in a cup every once in a while, and come up clean. Have to do it to get most jobs anyway. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if it cuts down in government spending due to people not collecting their welfare checks because they can't pass the test.
How do you figure those people will get their money to live now ?
Idk working? That's what I've been told all my life. Theres no such thing as free money, thats why it's called money...
I don't understand how this could possibly be construed as unconstitutional. It isn't like they are forcing mandatory drug tests for all, they are just making you being drug free a requirement for them giving you free money...
Considering no one gives a flying fuck about the hundreds of other back checks that the government does to award someone with welfare in the first place, I don't understand the complaints. Newsflash, making ends meet is more important than any drug, and this incentive to get clean is huge.
On June 11 2011 17:02 iCanada wrote: I don't understand how this could possibly be construed as unconstitutional. It isn't like they are forcing mandatory drug tests for all, they are just making you being drug free a requirement for them giving you free money...
Considering no one gives a flying fuck about the hundreds of other back checks that the government does to award someone with welfare in the first place, I don't understand the complaints. Newsflash, making ends meet is more important than any drug, and this incentive to get clean is huge.
Armchair lawyers need to calm down. It's unconstitutional because a judge says so: you don't see people arguing with doctors about wether or not they have cancer or with engineers about the best way to build a bridge. So why does everyone feel that they have the necessary skills and experience to tackle one of the most arcane and complex area of the law is beyond me.
So the honest people pee in a cup every once in a while, and come up clean. Have to do it to get most jobs anyway. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if it cuts down in government spending due to people not collecting their welfare checks because they can't pass the test.
How do you figure those people will get their money to live now ?
Idk working? That's what I've been told all my life. Theres no such thing as free money, thats why it's called money...
How many % of them will get a job you think ? How many % will resort to crime/working on the side avoiding taxes ? What about just going plain ole vanilla homeless and just going to the shelter to eat ? Getting people off the dole only for them to start dealing drugs or stealing cars isn't the brightest idea.
So the honest people pee in a cup every once in a while, and come up clean. Have to do it to get most jobs anyway. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if it cuts down in government spending due to people not collecting their welfare checks because they can't pass the test.
How do you figure those people will get their money to live now ?
Idk working? That's what I've been told all my life. Theres no such thing as free money, thats why it's called money...
there's no such thing as "jobs" for everyone. That's what everyone who puts 5 minutes of thinking into it knows.
So the honest people pee in a cup every once in a while, and come up clean. Have to do it to get most jobs anyway. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if it cuts down in government spending due to people not collecting their welfare checks because they can't pass the test.
How do you figure those people will get their money to live now ?
Idk working? That's what I've been told all my life. Theres no such thing as free money, thats why it's called money...
How many % of them will get a job you think ? How many % will resort to crime/working on the side avoiding taxes ? What about just going plain ole vanilla homeless and just going to the shelter to eat ? Getting people off the dole only for them to start dealing drugs or stealing cars isn't the brightest idea.
So it's better to give them free money and let them waste it on drugs? That's what you want your tax money to do?
Many people seem to be having problems understanding the constitutional issues present in this case. Posters on both sides are calling this a black and white issue, when in reality the constitutionality of this requirement is very unclear. I will try my best to explain the issues.
The Fourth Amendment requires that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches . . . shall not be violated . . . ." Basically, this means that whenever the government performs a search, it must be reasonable. First, the Supreme Court has held that a urine drug test does constitute a search. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 617. Therefore the only real question here is whether a search of all TANF applicants is reasonable.
In most cases, reasonableness is supplied by a particularized suspicion of wrongdoing. However, in this case there is no particularized suspicion; every applicant to the TANF is being subjected to this search. The Supreme Court has defined a class of exceptions to the particularized suspicion requirement for when special needs, other than law enforcement, justify a search. Basically, this involves weighing the individual's right to privacy with the governmental interest at stake. This will be the battleground for this law - do the governmental interests in spending welfare money effectively and preventing fraud, etc. counterbalance the applicants' privacy rights? This is a tough question and it is one about which reasonable people can disagree.
To show you how close these questions are: many posters have already pointed out that a similar law was struck down in Michigan. It was this exact question that the courts wrestled with: do the governmental interests outweigh the right to privacy? The district court called the drug tests unconstitutional, but was initially reversed by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Recognizing that the issue was very difficult and important, the Court of Appeals vacated their own decision and reheard he case en banc - which is a somewhat rare procedure where all the judges of the circuit get together and hear a case. So, 12 federal appellate judges heard the case and they were equally divided as to its constitutionality, 6-6. Under the 6th Circuit's tiebreaker rules, this meant that the lower court's ruling stood. So, anyone who says this is an easy issue either way simply does not understand what is going on.
Finally, many have been arguing either that there is a consent to the search or it is not mandated by the government, therefore it is reasonable. This really stretches the idea of consent, which must be freely and voluntarily given. I hope the following thought experiment, which simply switches which constitutional right is implicated, will help people understand: + Show Spoiler +
Imagine that, instead of a search, the government conditioned TANF eligibility on accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior and passing a test that proved you were a Christian. Would that present a constitutional problem?
Instead of giving people money they can spend on drugs, the state should give them the absolute minimum (food and shelter) and use what's left to create jobs for them. That Robin Hood mentality of taxing the rich to transfer wealth to the poor penalizes the former and alienates the latter.
That said, this proposal is ridiculous. The last thing people in the drag need is to be humiliated because of a minority of drug addicts. Last I checked you are presumed innocent without evidence of guilt, not the contrary.
On June 12 2011 01:51 Soap wrote: Instead of giving people money they can spend on drugs, the state should give them the absolute minimum (food and shelter) and use what's left to create jobs for them. That Robin Hood mentality of taxing the rich to transfer wealth to the poor penalizes the former and alienates the latter.
That said, this proposal is ridiculous. The last thing people in the drag need is to be humiliated because of a minority of drug addicts. Last I checked you are presumed innocent without evidence of guilt, not the contrary.
I don't understand the hate on this subject. It's not your right to receive welfare as far as I know. So how can it be unconstitutional to drug test someone who is receiving something that you are not entitled too?
I really don't see the problem with this either. It's pretty simply thought out. If you want to qualify for additional help towards your family they just want to make sure its going to your family not some man in a back alley so you can shoot up. Personally I would love for this to be required everywhere.
On June 12 2011 05:02 muse5187 wrote: I don't understand the hate on this subject. It's not your right to receive welfare as far as I know. So how can it be unconstitutional to drug test someone who is receiving something that you are not entitled too?
Just because you aren't entitled to welfare doesn't mean the government has a reasonable cause to search everyone who applies. The question here is reasonable cause, not entitlement. Any time the government does something, it needs a base reason to do so. Especially if the action is classified as a search. The circumstances which have culminated in the government being in a position to search someone are irrelevant for the question of constitutionality, it's whether or not the search itself has a reasonable purpose beyond institutionalizing the assumption that welfare recipients are generally also drug addicts.
Edit: I really don't get the crack and heroin references. You guys do realize that these drug tests will fail to pick up on those drugs because they are out of your system within a day... right? Cheap tests can only detect THC cause it sits in your system for weeks to months if you are a chronic user.
welfare to me is like driving. a privilege not a right. misusing a privilege gets it taken away so i see nothing wrong with this law. and unconstitutional? you dont need a reasonable cause because it isnt a right. the people who dont want to be tested can just opt out of their welfare check then
On June 10 2011 04:28 ComaDose wrote: Potentially violating their rights... bad Stopping people from buying drugs with tax payers money... good I hate how many dead beats get by here in ontario just sucking up government money for chicken fingers and pot and live in a shit hole and say things like. "heheh my salary was less than this". These people make me sick because they have no motivation to contribute to society. I am biased in my opinion because of knowing people like this. How effective this will be at stopping the kind of thing I am talking about I do not know. Addressing the issue is a good idea.
Welfare isn't a right, it is a privilege. We live in a capitalist society, and you make what you earn. About time the government stops throwing away money to low lives.. Not saying everyone on welfare is a low life. However, addicts who are using tax payer money for their addiction are low lives...
On June 12 2011 05:02 muse5187 wrote: I don't understand the hate on this subject. It's not your right to receive welfare as far as I know. So how can it be unconstitutional to drug test someone who is receiving something that you are not entitled too?
Just because you aren't entitled to welfare doesn't mean the government has a reasonable cause to search everyone who applies. The question here is reasonable cause, not entitlement. Any time the government does something, it needs a base reason to do so. Especially if the action is classified as a search. The circumstances which have culminated in the government being in a position to search someone are irrelevant for the question of constitutionality, it's whether or not the search itself has a reasonable purpose beyond institutionalizing the assumption that welfare recipients are generally also drug addicts.
Edit: I really don't get the crack and heroin references. You guys do realize that these drug tests will fail to pick up on those drugs because they are out of your system within a day... right? Cheap tests can only detect THC cause it sits in your system for weeks to months if you are a chronic user.
It sounds like, for you, a better solution would be for the government to shutdown welfare to everyone, therefore nobody has to undergo these "unreasonable searches" that are drug screenings.
On June 12 2011 05:02 muse5187 wrote: I don't understand the hate on this subject. It's not your right to receive welfare as far as I know. So how can it be unconstitutional to drug test someone who is receiving something that you are not entitled too?
Just because you aren't entitled to welfare doesn't mean the government has a reasonable cause to search everyone who applies. The question here is reasonable cause, not entitlement. Any time the government does something, it needs a base reason to do so. Especially if the action is classified as a search. The circumstances which have culminated in the government being in a position to search someone are irrelevant for the question of constitutionality, it's whether or not the search itself has a reasonable purpose beyond institutionalizing the assumption that welfare recipients are generally also drug addicts.
Reason : government is going broke and giving away money to buy drugs. Something is obviously wrong with that.
On June 12 2011 05:19 SolidusR wrote: Edit: I really don't get the crack and heroin references. You guys do realize that these drug tests will fail to pick up on those drugs because they are out of your system within a day... right? Cheap tests can only detect THC cause it sits in your system for weeks to months if you are a chronic user.
While we're on the subject of irrelevancy. How does the amount of time you can detect a drug user matter? Chances are sooner or later they will get caught with the random tests.
I have had to get a drug test for every real job I have started. I do not feel bad that people getting welfare will as well.
Those of you who say how is it fair to withhold money because they have a bad habit: its no different than if I try to get a job with a bad habit. I simply wont get the job, thus I won't get paid.
Any step to pushing back at the plague that is ruining this country is a good one. America is becoming more of a filth every day.
On June 12 2011 05:46 splinter9 wrote: where do you draw the line with this? people should also be tested to see if they are alcoholics, shopaholics, gamblers etc.
With the exception of gambling depending on state, none of those things are illegal.
If you are breaking the governments laws, the government shouldn't be giving you free money. I don't think the government should be giving you free money at all, but betterment of society and all that. Hell I would rather there be government subsidies for REHAB than to be just blindly giving drug addicts money.
On June 12 2011 05:46 splinter9 wrote: where do you draw the line with this? people should also be tested to see if they are alcoholics, shopaholics, gamblers etc.
Where do you think the line is drawn? It's illegal to use certain substances. And no I am not in the drugs are bad camp. This is just hypocritical. Welfare is to help people, not feed their addictions.
So the honest people pee in a cup every once in a while, and come up clean. Have to do it to get most jobs anyway. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if it cuts down in government spending due to people not collecting their welfare checks because they can't pass the test.
How do you figure those people will get their money to live now ?
Stop doing drugs so that they test clean? Keep clean until they have a job so they have the income to support their habit?
On June 12 2011 05:46 splinter9 wrote: where do you draw the line with this? people should also be tested to see if they are alcoholics, shopaholics, gamblers etc.
With the exception of gambling depending on state, none of those things are illegal.
If you are breaking the governments laws, the government shouldn't be giving you free money. I don't think the government should be giving you free money at all, but betterment of society and all that. Hell I would rather there be government subsidies for REHAB than to be just blindly giving drug addicts money.
The issue is that government money is being used fraudulently which is illegal. So I don't see why it matters whether its being wasted on hookers, drugs or donuts.
for the most part i agree with this test it just seems somewhat redundant to test poor people with a multitude of social and physical issues just for drug problems where there are so many problems these people may nor may not have that will "waste" this money. its a slippery slope
violating rights? who cares, they are getting free money, they are basically slaves anyways. Most people on welfare are already addicts of some kind, it's only natural that a sum of the money they receive will be going towards that addiction. It's an infinite feedback loop for these people, they feel terrible they don't have a job so they get high or drunk, the government sends them money so they just keep doing it and never actually try and get out of welfare. If someone is handing you free booze and you like to drink, you take it.
I don't think ALL people on welfare are actually like this though, I know there are people who are actually trying to make a life for themselves they just happen to live in bad area that makes it tough for one to get out of.
On July 03 2011 05:46 CurLy[] wrote: I'm pretty sure a dime sack is cheaper then testing every single person on welfare.
I don't know about this economically or morally, now instead of smoking pot they'll drink alcohol. Is that really better?
great point, they could always just abuse alcohol but at least we know that some of the money won't be used on meth or something equally hardcore.
On July 03 2011 05:48 fish ()( wrote: about damn time, every state should do this why give tax payer dollars to people who will just use it to get high?
I believe that no government services whatsoever should be provided to anyone who does not pass a drug test.
Why give people free services, when they will just take advantage of them, leaving them with money to get high.
Education for your kids? Why should the government pay for that? Druggies should send their kids to private school, instead of using that money to get high.
Subsidies for public transit? Druggies should buy and pay for their cars. Instead of using that money to get high.
This will be an iteresting case for the supreme court in a few years when it gets up there. I bet its a 6-3 decision that its unconstitutional. We will see though.
How on earth is it unconstitutional? Every single job I've ever had I had to take a drug test for. Why should free money from the government be exempt from that? You don't HAVE to get on welfare, but if you do, you have to follow the rules. One of the rules now is don't do drugs. I fail to see how that is at all a bad thing.
On July 03 2011 07:11 Moonwrath wrote: How on earth is it unconstitutional? Every single job I've ever had I had to take a drug test for. Why should free money from the government be exempt from that? You don't HAVE to get on welfare, but if you do, you have to follow the rules. One of the rules now is don't do drugs. I fail to see how that is at all a bad thing.
Private businesses can do as they will. They can punish you for unwise speech, punish you for bringing a firearm into the office, or punish you for disseminating literature contrary to their charter or best interests.
The government is bound by the Constitution and its amendments. This law is a direct and obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment, and it should be struck down quickly.
On July 03 2011 07:11 Moonwrath wrote: How on earth is it unconstitutional? Every single job I've ever had I had to take a drug test for. Why should free money from the government be exempt from that? You don't HAVE to get on welfare, but if you do, you have to follow the rules. One of the rules now is don't do drugs. I fail to see how that is at all a bad thing.
Private businesses can do as they will. They can punish you for unwise speech, punish you for bringing a firearm into the office, or punish you for disseminating literature contrary to their charter or best interests.
The government is bound by the Constitution and its amendments. This law is a direct and obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment, and it should be struck down quickly.
Umm no, it is not a clear violation of the 4th amendment. A clear violation would be the government requiring everyone to get a drug test, or randomly picking people to take drug tests. There is no cause for search there. There is, however, a cause when you voluntarily go on welfare to receive money from the government. Nobody is forcing you to go on welfare. If you want to go on welfare, you must complete a drug test to ensure that the government's money will be spent on its intended purpose. I still do not understand how that requirement is unconstitutional. It is entirely within the realm of a reasonable search to check if the people you're giving money too are using drugs.
-Hiring lab techs to run all these test is going to be a pain. -Having Medical Techs to make data reports and ensuring the testing is being done properly. -Having new analysers to handle the new load of specimens. -Having staff on hand to ensure that the specimen is being collected properly. -Having the analyser's company engineers on hand to fix the machines. -Having to store and organize all lab results.
and this is just from lab testing in itself there are other angles that are there as well. Drug addicts will still be drug addicts and now without a money source they will commit crimes to get their fix. So you got to either eat the fall of property value due to robberies or other crimes or you got to hire more cops or lock up then all up where your tax money is still going to be paying for their lively hoods be instead now it's going to be costing alot more.
This is a poor and honestly a obvious scheme to fatten of the Rick's wallet. Sign some crazy law to appeal to Americans knee jerk reaction to drugs and the poor then pocket all the money for yourself so shallow then effective.
On July 03 2011 07:11 Moonwrath wrote: How on earth is it unconstitutional? Every single job I've ever had I had to take a drug test for. Why should free money from the government be exempt from that? You don't HAVE to get on welfare, but if you do, you have to follow the rules. One of the rules now is don't do drugs. I fail to see how that is at all a bad thing.
Private businesses can do as they will. They can punish you for unwise speech, punish you for bringing a firearm into the office, or punish you for disseminating literature contrary to their charter or best interests.
The government is bound by the Constitution and its amendments. This law is a direct and obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment, and it should be struck down quickly.
Umm no, it is not a clear violation of the 4th amendment. A clear violation would be the government requiring everyone to get a drug test, or randomly picking people to take drug tests. There is no cause for search there. There is, however, a cause when you voluntarily go on welfare to receive money from the government. Nobody is forcing you to go on welfare. If you want to go on welfare, you must complete a drug test to ensure that the government's money will be spent on its intended purpose. I still do not understand how that requirement is unconstitutional. It is entirely within the realm of a reasonable search to check if the people you're giving money too are using drugs.
^ Agree. " Nobody is forcing you to go on welfare. If you want to go on welfare, you must complete a drug test to ensure that the government's money will be spent on its intended purpose.".
If they sign something that says that they will not use tax payer money to buy drugs, then there has to be a way to test that.
Nevertheless, both sides of the argument are interesting
Just so everyone knows the govenor who signed this into law owns a drug testing company. well thats not completely true when he took office he had to quit all his buisnesses to make sure he didnt have any conflict of interest so..... he gave it to his wife. think im bullshitting look it up its public record. so anyone still think this is about giving money to people who deserve it? or is it just another govenor signing things into law that directly make him more money. learn to look at things deeper people most if its some one in the goverment who wants new requirements for anything.
@Detwiler - I'd laugh if all the discussion on this being class warfare is just to draw people away from realizing this is yet another pork project.
from the CNN article:
In April, Scott, who had transferred his ownership interest in Solantic Corp. to a trust in his wife's name, said the company would not contract for state business, according to local media reports. He subsequently sold his majority stake in the company, local media reported.
On May 18, the Florida Ethics Commission ruled that two conflict-of-interest complaints against Scott were legally insufficient to warrant investigation, and adopted an opinion that no "prohibited conflict of interest" existed.
For the moment Scott isn't directly accountable. That said, if his ownership is now under hiw wife's name, the wife would still be benefiting. I think this comes down to whether or not the company honors its position on "not contracting for state business".
right im sure it wont. im positive his drug testing company wont do any tests for the state and im even more positive that him haing the company had nothing to do with him backing the law. lolz i mean come on. local media reported? right... oh and the government ethics commission? what a joke. everyone here use your own ethics. if i own a company, then give it to my wife, then make a law that gives that company buisness, is that a conflict of interests? please. i dont think it even warrants a discussion. oh but the government appointed ethics commission finds there isnt one huh who woulda thought... oh wait who pays the commissions paychecks? congrats on the govenor for successfully trolling a whole state. thats epic.
Found this on reddit's r/politics. The source says in Florida, just 2% of welfare recipients failed the drug test, and another 2% are not completing the application process for reasons unspecified.
Another interesting fact is that Gov Scott had stock in the drug testing company who was awarded the entierty of the contract. He sold of his stock for $62 million in April.
On August 28 2011 17:17 SpiffD wrote: Sorry to bump, but I think this is very relevant.
Found this on reddit's r/politics. The source says in Florida, just 2% of welfare recipients failed the drug test, and another 2% are not completing the application process for reasons unspecified.
Another interesting fact is that Gov Scott had stock in the drug testing company who was awarded the entierty of the contract. He sold of his stock for $62 million in April.
The stock issue has been raised a lot, but the fact that only 2% are failing (4% if we assume the non-compliant people are users) really says a lot about how weak Scott's argument was in the first place. That's less than half the rate of the general population (1/4th if you don't count the non-compliant people).
On August 28 2011 17:45 Quagmire wrote: isnt welfare a right? who cares what ppl do with the welfare they get?
Well, how do you define a right? There's no clause in the American Constitution, for example, that all citizens are guaranteed a certain minimum income level. It's arguable from an ethical standpoint that all human beings have the right to a dignified standard of living, but that's not codified in American law to the best of my knowledge.
On August 28 2011 17:45 Quagmire wrote: isnt welfare a right? who cares what ppl do with the welfare they get?
Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
On August 28 2011 17:45 Quagmire wrote: isnt welfare a right? who cares what ppl do with the welfare they get?
Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
I want those seeking welfare to possess not the smallest luxury, nor do I want them to partake in any recreational activity.
On August 28 2011 18:07 RoyW wrote: I want those seeking welfare to possess not the smallest luxury, nor do I want them to partake in any recreational activity.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.
That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.
Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
That said, math itself is based on axioms that are unfalsifiable, like a=a or a+a=2a. So it's really still a matter of faith.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
Lets go with basic logic then. Do you think having a drug test for every welfare applicant is free or something?
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
On August 28 2011 17:45 Quagmire wrote: isnt welfare a right? who cares what ppl do with the welfare they get?
Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
I want those seeking welfare to possess not the smallest luxury, nor do I want them to partake in any recreational activity.
I'm not saying that they should have no luxuries at all, but they certainly shouldn't be spending government money to get high -.-
(Unless your sarcasm was completely literal... its hard to read expressions in words) -.-
But yeah I don't think this is in the best interests of the treasury
I would love to see something like this implimented in canada. Even if 4% of the people on welfare use it to support a drug habit then those 4% should be cut off.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
...for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
40,800 < 178,000,000
The drug testing program doesn't cost that. Welfare programs are what costs the 178 million. The point they were trying to make is that the money saved by this program will be only pennies compared to the total welfare budget. A fair point, but the fact remains that it may save money from the state budget.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400
Read the next couple dozen words immediately after that statement.
...for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
40,800 < 178,000,000
The drug testing program doesn't cost that. Welfare programs are what costs the 178 million. The point they were trying to make is that the money saved by this program will be only pennies compared to the total welfare budget. A fair point, but the fact remains that it may save money from the state budget.
Those "savings" you mention do not include to cost of implementing the drug testing program. As there are a few lines later that state "The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings".
As it is as of yet uncalculated, it is impossible to deduct from the savings. Do you think that this program will cost less than 90k a year?
On August 28 2011 18:19 BlackJack wrote: The drug testing program doesn't cost that. Welfare programs are what costs the 178 million. The point they were trying to make is that the money saved by this program will be only pennies compared to the total welfare budget. A fair point, but the fact remains that it may save money from the state budget.
You're right. But they calculated the numbers using only the cost of the drug test, not the cost of distribution or administration. They'd have to staff with less than six people paid minumum wage, which is not going to happen.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
The US government doesn't really have a great track record with their finances...but anyways on topic. The government should not care even if this is costing them $1mil a month. The point is it will weed out the leeches and THAT is a good thing. When everybody stops abusing the system, gets off their arses and gets employment and can actually start contributing to society then the benefits will be realised. You gotta take away a bit to gain ground.
On August 28 2011 17:45 Quagmire wrote: isnt welfare a right? who cares what ppl do with the welfare they get?
Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
I want those seeking welfare to possess not the smallest luxury, nor do I want them to partake in any recreational activity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of welfare to help unfortunate people back on their feet in times of need? It's not a fallback to keep getting by and not try to improve your life. It certainly wasn't created so those people that have ruined their lives through addiction can keep scoring, at the cost of their health and taxpayers money. Even a minimum wage job will afford you the basic necessities to live reasonably.
On August 28 2011 18:29 exShikari wrote: The US government doesn't really have a great track record with their finances...but anyways on topic. The government should not care even if this is costing them $1mil a month. The point is it will weed out the leeches and THAT is a good thing. When everybody stops abusing the system, gets off their arses and gets employment and can actually start contributing to society then the benefits will be realised. You gotta take away a bit to gain ground.
I know this is difficult to understand, but YOU would be throwing away MY tax dollars if the cost was higher than the revenue. Unless you have proof that your theory is true, your statement is outright malicious to people who pay money to the government.
On August 28 2011 18:29 exShikari wrote: Even a minimum wage job will afford you the basic necessities to live reasonably.
This is simply untrue in the United States. Minimum Wage in Washington State(highest minimum wage in USA) is about $18033.60 per year. This is not enough to live reasonably in most areas.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400
Read the next couple dozen words immediately after that statement.
...for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
40,800 < 178,000,000
The drug testing program doesn't cost that. Welfare programs are what costs the 178 million. The point they were trying to make is that the money saved by this program will be only pennies compared to the total welfare budget. A fair point, but the fact remains that it may save money from the state budget.
Those "savings" you mention do not include to cost of implementing the drug testing program. As there are a few lines later that state "The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings".
As it is as of yet uncalculated, it is impossible to deduct from the savings. Do you think that this program will cost less than 90k a year?
Shrug, I can't speculate on that but I'd rather have money going to the DCF than to drug addicts
On August 28 2011 18:36 BlackJack wrote: Shrug, I can't speculate on that but I'd rather have money going to the DCF than to drug addicts
Because those are clearly the only two options where money can go. Spending the cash on cancer research or celiac's disease or something else productive seems like a better idea than throwing the cash down a hole.
On August 28 2011 18:29 exShikari wrote: Even a minimum wage job will afford you the basic necessities to live reasonably.
This is simply untrue in the United States. Minimum Wage in Washington State(highest minimum wage in USA) is about $18033.60 per year. This is not enough to live reasonably in most areas.
Ok I knew it was low compared to Australia, but not that low. Here it's ~$30k annually which is doable. I agree under $20k is not.
On August 28 2011 18:29 exShikari wrote: The US government doesn't really have a great track record with their finances...but anyways on topic. The government should not care even if this is costing them $1mil a month. The point is it will weed out the leeches and THAT is a good thing. When everybody stops abusing the system, gets off their arses and gets employment and can actually start contributing to society then the benefits will be realised. You gotta take away a bit to gain ground.
I know this is difficult to understand, but YOU would be throwing away MY tax dollars if the cost was higher than the revenue. Unless you have proof that your theory is true, your statement is outright malicious to people who pay money to the government.
You're missing my point entirely. I'm not being malicious to taxpayers, quite the opposite. The govt. can't just give money to whoever asks for it, that is how they will end up worse off.
This may be difficult for YOU to understand, seeing as you want to make this personal, but it doesn't matter if you lose money for even the next ten years, if it stops the current cycle then that's a good thing. In twenty years the country and its citizens will be far better off and isn't that the whole point of a welfare system?
On August 28 2011 18:46 exShikari wrote: You're missing my point entirely. I'm not being malicious to taxpayers, quite the opposite. The govt. can't just give money to whoever asks for it, that is how they will end up worse off.
This may be difficult for YOU to understand, seeing as you want to make this personal, but it doesn't matter if you lose money for even the next ten years, if it stops the current cycle then that's a good thing. In twenty years the country and its citizens will be far better off and isn't that the whole point of a welfare system?
Do you have any proof that it would stop the drug cycle for even six weeks...and that the drug cycle would stay stopped without further policing? We've been trying for a century, have you come up with a miraculous solution supported by evidence?
If not then yes, you are being malicious to taxpayers. Your first sentence even sounds suspiciously like ideology, not cost savings.
There certainly are ways to reduce drug usage in a given population, but the vast majority of attempts target the next generation: children. It's relatively cheap, easy to do, and you can make it mandatory. Much more difficult and expensive to do on adults for obvious reasons.
On August 28 2011 18:46 exShikari wrote: You're missing my point entirely. I'm not being malicious to taxpayers, quite the opposite. The govt. can't just give money to whoever asks for it, that is how they will end up worse off.
This may be difficult for YOU to understand, seeing as you want to make this personal, but it doesn't matter if you lose money for even the next ten years, if it stops the current cycle then that's a good thing. In twenty years the country and its citizens will be far better off and isn't that the whole point of a welfare system?
Do you have any proof that it would stop the drug cycle for even six weeks...and that the drug cycle would stay stopped without further policing? We've been trying for a century, have you come up with a miraculous solution supported by evidence?
If not then yes, you are being malicious to taxpayers. Your first sentence even sounds suspiciously like ideology, not cost savings.
There certainly are ways to reduce drug usage in a given population, but the vast majority of attempts target the next generation: children. It's relatively cheap, easy to do, and you can make it mandatory.
Ideology lolwut, it seems you're reading into it too much. No I don't have a miracle cure, but this has to start somewhere. By not doing anything you're pretty much saying it's ok for these people to carry on as they are, which it isn't. Cut them off from their money and they can't get their drugs.
I agree that the best way to reduce drug use is to target the next gen, but that doesn't mean something still can't be done about the current generation. For what it's worth I absolutely believe drugs are ok, and weed should at least be decriminalised. It's just the people with low self-control that take a ride on the downward spiral.
And the employees required to submit to a drug test before receiving the job, what's that? Work for pay, and you gotta submit to one, don't work, and it's overstepping the bounds? Didn't see that on the IRS form, where I put down if I received my wages after having consented to a drug test. Didn't see the check box under it when I decide if the taxed income goes to clean welfare recipients or drug users.
Yet if anybody can screw this one up, it's government-administered drug tests. And this would be just a baby step in the broader view of welfare reform.
On August 28 2011 18:36 BlackJack wrote: Shrug, I can't speculate on that but I'd rather have money going to the DCF than to drug addicts
Because those are clearly the only two options where money can go. Spending the cash on cancer research or celiac's disease or something else productive seems like a better idea than throwing the cash down a hole.
Or even simply not spending the money.
Still hasn't even been proven that this will be costing money
On August 28 2011 19:04 exShikari wrote: Ideology lolwut, it seems you're reading into it too much. No I don't have a miracle cure, but this has to start somewhere. By not doing anything you're pretty much saying it's ok for these people to carry on as they are, which it isn't. Cut them off from their money and they can't get their drugs.
Or, since the cost to the taxpayer is almost certainly higher than the savings, the money could be used elsewhere to benefit, not loss.
You haven't posted any evidence to the contrary, that the long term will break a century-old cycle of drug use and generate savings. It's just as correct for me to say that the drug junkies cut off from welfare will turn to crime instead, destroying private property and murdering innocents to fuel their drug addiction. That is to say, it's completely unproven until evidence is presented.
Still hasn't even been proven that this will be costing money
You want to believe administration and distribution will cost less than 90k in wages and man-hours for the entire state of Florida, go ahead. I warn you though, wages paid to an average Macdonalds' staff would break that budget
How is drug testing people to receive a public service constitutional? Imagine if they did that for driving on the highway, to get your child tax credit, or collect Social Security.
On August 28 2011 19:04 exShikari wrote: Ideology lolwut, it seems you're reading into it too much. No I don't have a miracle cure, but this has to start somewhere. By not doing anything you're pretty much saying it's ok for these people to carry on as they are, which it isn't. Cut them off from their money and they can't get their drugs.
Or, since the cost to the taxpayer is almost certainly higher than the savings, the money could be used elsewhere to benefit, not loss.
You haven't posted any evidence to the contrary, that the long term will break a century-old cycle of drug use and generate savings. It's just as correct for me to say that the drug junkies cut off from welfare will turn to crime instead, destroying private property and murdering innocents to fuel their drug addiction. That is to say, it's completely unproven until evidence is presented.
On August 28 2011 19:04 exShikari wrote: I agree that the best way to reduce drug use is to target the next gen, but that doesn't mean something still can't be done about the current generation. For what it's worth I absolutely believe drugs are ok, and weed should at least be decriminalised. It's just the people with low self-control that take a ride on the downward spiral.
This is a clear example of how the money could be better spent; on economics 101 classes across Florida so people understand what an opportunity cost is.
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.
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.
Guess who owns one of the largest drug testing companies in Florida? Solantic was a company Scott had a majority stake in until he was elected. He then signed his stake over to his wife.
Have to spend money to make money, even in Politics.
my only comment is that buying some weed is entirley different to being a hard core drug user.
Do they also screen for alcohol?
Causes far more social problems, i mean with this logic it would be socially irresponsible not to. Then do the same for food And a minimum amount of exercise per day - i mean you are socially obliged right?
edit: nvm people are able to cheat the tests, i forgot about that. oh well. in the next 20 years it should be a daily thing, where you pick your finger and touch the pad, and the blood test results are done daily. but thats not for a while, when it does happen, yay!! no more drugs in canada. ffs..
On August 29 2011 03:55 MrTortoise wrote: my only comment is that buying some weed is entirley different to being a hard core drug user.
Do they also screen for alcohol?
Causes far more social problems, i mean with this logic it would be socially irresponsible not to. Then do the same for food And a minimum amount of exercise per day - i mean you are socially obliged right?
....
I don't know how it works in Florida, but I know here in Canada, drug tests also check for Alcohol. It's pretty standard/easy. They either do a quick breathalizer or cotton swab in the mouth.
On August 29 2011 03:57 wishbones wrote: edit: nvm people are able to cheat the tests, i forgot about that. oh well. in the next 20 years it should be a daily thing, where you pick your finger and touch the pad, and the blood test results are done daily. but thats not for a while, when it does happen, yay!! no more drugs in canada. ffs..
Not only would it cost more money but I personally think its absolutely disgusting that you think that that would not only be acceptable but would be taking steps in the right direction.
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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.
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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.
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.
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...
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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 people failed, 2% of people did not complete the process (for obvious yet undisclosed reasons), 96% of people passed, according to the Tampa Tribune. These numbers are for applicants in the first month since the law's implementation. Also, only new applicants are affected according the the DCF's website.
EDIT: The testing only happens on application but the aid lasts for 48 months, after which you have to reapply.
Turns out the law was based on Governor Scott's ignorant stereotypes of poor people and is going to waste a bunch of state money right into his pocket.
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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
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...
It's EXTREMELY easy to pass a drug test if you know when it is scheduled. Most drugs only stay in your system for a few days, Marijuana can last up to a month, but usually 2 weeks. So I can go snort some cocaine on the weekend and be fine on Tuesday for my drug test. I work in the Oilsands industry in Alberta where pre-access drug and alcohol tests are mandatory before you can be employed and MOST of my friends (who I would not consider above average intelligence) pass the tests without problems every time.
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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
You're paying more... For absolutely nothing. People are still doing drugs, on welfare, and now you have to pay more on top of it. What don't you understand about this?
It's not our place to tell individuals how to spend their money. We can only provide incentives as much as possible.
A perfect analogy is the doctors treating smoking patients. Some doctors think it's their job to stop them from smoking after treating smokers. However, you can't actively change someone. They have to do it for themselves or with the influence of those close to them.
Same goes for drug addicts. Why do we ask where the money goes when we give money to the poor when we don't ask for the same info when we give to the rich? I ask the same of both demographics: here's the money you need and where u should spend it, but if u don't put it there, the burden is ON YOU. It's not like we're buying these people Rolls Royces. It's food money for god sakes.
We can only try and keep the poor afloat, not let them rot and die. It's the humane and progressive thing to do. I think it's sick requiring the poor to be drug tested when many are trying to recover from drug addictions. You don't try and quit heroin cold turkey and get back on ur feet at the same time. It takes time. We punish people trying to better themselves and it's ridiculous. Those who get out of jail have a hard time finding work because we punish them after the fact they did their time already. We said as a nation you served ur punishment. Now, go serve some more as u try and form a life.
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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.
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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.
The thing is, cannabis is the only drug that shows up on a drug test after like 4-5 days of stopped usage. Heroin and cocaine leave no trace after 48 hours since usage. The hard drugs are what the government should be worried about, cannabis affects people's behavior far less than alcohol does...
All I see this legislation doing is hurting people on welfare who also happen to be cannabis smokers while not addressing people with real drug problems.
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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.
Now that we know the state is losing money on this we get to see whether their original reason for enacting it was actually to save money or if it was to just vindictively humiliate a lot of poor people
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.
On August 29 2011 04:40 slytown wrote: It's not our place to tell individuals how to spend their money. We can only provide incentives as much as possible.
But it's not THEIR money, it belongs to the tax payer. Welfare is not charity, it is given on a conditional basis (in the UK you have to meet certain criteria, including being able to prove you are actively looking for work, so in a sense it's an investment as the government hopes with the financial support you will sooner become a tax contributing member of society) - it shouldn't be any problem to extend the criteria to include drug screening.
And on the costs of drug tests, I'm sure if the proposal was changed from drug testing for every payment to subject to 'random' on the spot testing then that would be cheaper than blanket testing everyone. Possibly the larger scale of testing would lead to reduced costs - not wholesale tests, but government owned and staff testing center etc.
96% clean = 1 in 20 a user. That is significant enough to me to warrant spending on testing. If those caught were subject to a lifelong ban on receiving welfare (none of the passing it on to someone else rubbish), it could save a fair deal.
On August 29 2011 04:40 slytown wrote: It's not our place to tell individuals how to spend their money. We can only provide incentives as much as possible.
96% clean = 1 in 20 a user. That is significant enough to me to warrant spending on testing. If those caught were subject to a lifelong ban on receiving welfare (none of the passing it on to someone else rubbish), it could save a fair deal.
On August 29 2011 04:40 slytown wrote: It's not our place to tell individuals how to spend their money. We can only provide incentives as much as possible.
But it's not THEIR money, it belongs to the tax payer. Welfare is not charity, it is given on a conditional basis (in the UK you have to meet certain criteria, including being able to prove you are actively looking for work, so in a sense it's an investment as the government hopes with the financial support you will sooner become a tax contributing member of society) - it shouldn't be any problem to extend the criteria to include drug screening.
And on the costs of drug tests, I'm sure if the proposal was changed from drug testing for every payment to subject to 'random' on the spot testing then that would be cheaper than blanket testing everyone. Possibly the larger scale of testing would lead to reduced costs - not wholesale tests, but government owned and staff testing center etc.
96% clean = 1 in 20 a user. That is significant enough to me to warrant spending on testing. If those caught were subject to a lifelong ban on receiving welfare (none of the passing it on to someone else rubbish), it could save a fair deal.
In the US, we have a special provision to prevent government searches without a warrant or probably cause. It's the Fourth Amendment to our constitution. This drug testing program constitutes an unreasonable search, even if it were just enacted on a random sampling instead of all welfare recipients.
Also, your characterization of who the money "belongs to" is odd. The state has the money which it collected from taxes, but people who qualify for welfare are entitled to their benefits. That is, the state must pay them as long as the meet the requirements for welfare. As stated above, a search like this is illegal, and therefore cannot be a requirement for receiving welfare.
If you had read even the past couple pages, you'd know that the program costs more than it saves, so that wouldn't be a good rationale even if it were legal to test these people (and it's not).
Also 96% is 1 in 25, not 1 in 20. And only 2% actually failed the test, so that's 1 in 50. That's not exactly an epidemic, if you ask me.
And I still can't figure out why we should withhold aid to people simply because they may have smoked pot in the past month or so. "You smoked pot? Well you sure as hell can't have money for food."
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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.
On August 29 2011 04:40 slytown wrote: It's not our place to tell individuals how to spend their money. We can only provide incentives as much as possible.
But it's not THEIR money, it belongs to the tax payer. Welfare is not charity, it is given on a conditional basis (in the UK you have to meet certain criteria, including being able to prove you are actively looking for work, so in a sense it's an investment as the government hopes with the financial support you will sooner become a tax contributing member of society) - it shouldn't be any problem to extend the criteria to include drug screening.
And on the costs of drug tests, I'm sure if the proposal was changed from drug testing for every payment to subject to 'random' on the spot testing then that would be cheaper than blanket testing everyone. Possibly the larger scale of testing would lead to reduced costs - not wholesale tests, but government owned and staff testing center etc.
96% clean = 1 in 20 a user. That is significant enough to me to warrant spending on testing. If those caught were subject to a lifelong ban on receiving welfare (none of the passing it on to someone else rubbish), it could save a fair deal.
96% clean (even assuming the 2% that did not complete their applications were *all* drug users) is one in 25, not one in 20, and it is *still* lower than Florida's state average of around 8%. This program to stop welfare recipients (in this case specifically cash recipients) from buying illicit drugs is firstly not founded on good statistics (or statistics at all) and secondly going to cost the state way more money than it saves. It is a bad policy that does little other than put money in the pocket of the Governor (NOT the state). Further, the expense of the policy is going to be huge if this goes to court, which seems likely. It's just not worth it.
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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.
Didn't we have this exact argument like a month ago?
People are entitled to their welfare. The state must pay them the money if they qualify. A drug test cannot be a requirement for welfare because the state doesn't have the right to force people to take the test (which is an unreasonable search) in order to claim what is legally theirs.
Would you make the same argument if the state wanted to drug test everyone in order for them to receive their tax returns? I sincerely doubt it, but it's the same thing.
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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...
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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.
Didn't we have this exact argument like a month ago?
People are entitled to their welfare. The state must pay them the money if they qualify. A drug test cannot be a requirement for welfare because the state doesn't have the right to force people to take the test (which is an unreasonable search) in order to claim what is legally theirs.
Would you make the same argument if the state wanted to drug test everyone in order for them to receive their tax returns? I sincerely doubt it, but it's the same thing.
The law changes the requirements for receiving cash assistance (note: not all welfare is covered under this, for instance food stamps) so that people are *not* entitled to cash assistance unless they consent to a drug test. Sneaky, but it doesn't mean the ACLU doesn't have a case.
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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...
dont compare drug testing to airports please. Seriously.
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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.
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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...
Flying is not welfare, it is a private business that the government regulates, and people are searched due to the dangers of harming others. Try another example.
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!"
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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 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.
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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 04:21 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 06:29 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 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 06:29 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 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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 06:29 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.
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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 06:29 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.
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.
Hmm, that seems to contradict what I read here:
On August 28 2011 18:12 acker wrote: This is what math is for.
Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.
That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.
Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
That said, math itself is based on axioms that are unfalsifiable, like a=a or a+a=2a. So it's really still a matter of faith.
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?
What is confusing about this to me? The fact that student loans, medicare, and medicaid don't cut you a blank check that can be cashed for whatever you want - for example, drugs. SS, perhaps, but including student loans, medicare, and medicaid is illogical for comparison's sake. What is confusing about that to you?
On August 29 2011 03:41 dANiELcanuck wrote: 98% of people passed the drug test. It cost the government more to administer the tests than would be given to those who abuse the system. Way to go!
edit: Sorry I remembered the article wrong. It was actually 96%. 178 million dollars well spent if you ask me.
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 aren't entitled to Welfare, it is a benefit should you meet specific criteria. That simple fact renders your entire argument against this law invalid. Learn the definitions of Entitlement and Benefit before posting stupid ill informed arguments.
On August 29 2011 07:26 FallDownMarigold wrote: What is confusing about this to me? The fact that student loans, medicare, and medicaid don't cut you a blank check that can be cashed for whatever you want - for example, drugs. SS, perhaps, but including student loans, medicare, and medicaid is illogical for comparison's sake. What is confusing about that to you?
If someone on medicaid who undergoes a $100 medical procedure at the taxpayer's expense and then turns around and spend $100 on drugs, they were able to offset their consumption of drugs with money that was given to them to spend on an expense they were already committed to. Just because some compensation isn't as transferable as direct cash payments doesn't mean it isn't as good as cash if that compensation is going to be used to offset what would have otherwise been cash spending.
On June 10 2011 04:29 Babyfactory wrote: Unfortunately, as I'm completely against social programs to begin with, this is completely counter intuitive to the very nature of them. I'd prefer that we'd subsidize work ethic rather than poverty, but with the current system it's a terrible idea to put this type of a restriction on.
It's the role of society to take care of the individuals who needs the help, turning your back on them only gives them a chance to stick a knife in it.
And enabling them to buy drugs without ever having to work or do anything productive is NOT helping them... And if they're not on drugs, then good! We can know that we're helping someone get back on their feet.
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.
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.
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.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course the government/distributor of money should be able to determine what the money is used on. These programs are in place to help people in specific situations, not to just arbitrarily hand out money to anyone. The purpose is to help the poor with living expenses. Drugs are not included in living expenses, and tax payers should not have to support unhealthy and destructive habits like that. If anything, the government should issue cards instead of money, and track every purchase made with that money (because it was given to the people for a purpose by the government). Once you have said to society that you are incapable of taking care of yourself, you don't have the luxury of demanding privacy when it comes to what you're going to spend everyone else's EARNED money on. Get a clue.
On August 29 2011 08:06 LuCiD37 wrote: If anything, the government should issue cards instead of money, and track every purchase made with that money (because it was given to the people for a purpose by the government). Get a clue.
Your proposal of creating an entire new government bureaucracy dedicated to telling poor people what they're allowed to buy shows that this was never about saving taxpayer money so much as it was about punishing poor people.
On August 29 2011 08:06 LuCiD37 wrote: If anything, the government should issue cards instead of money, and track every purchase made with that money (because it was given to the people for a purpose by the government). Get a clue.
Your proposal of creating an entire new government bureaucracy dedicated to telling poor people what they're allowed to buy shows that this was never about saving taxpayer money so much as it was about punishing poor people.
It doesn't create a new bureaucracy. Also, requiring people who want a free handout from the government to take the same test as every single person who has a job had to take to get that job is punishing poor people?
That has to be the single most clueless and idiotic argument I have ever heard.
On August 29 2011 08:06 LuCiD37 wrote: If anything, the government should issue cards instead of money, and track every purchase made with that money (because it was given to the people for a purpose by the government). Get a clue.
Your proposal of creating an entire new government bureaucracy dedicated to telling poor people what they're allowed to buy shows that this was never about saving taxpayer money so much as it was about punishing poor people.
It doesn't create a new bureaucracy. Also, requiring people who want a free handout from the government to take the same test as every single person who has a job had to take to get that job is punishing poor people?
That has to be the single most clueless and idiotic argument I have ever heard.
Oh, so all of the people who set up the infrastructure for issuing cards and tracking every purchase made by someone on welfare along with the people who will set up the IT, run the helpdesk, and manage these people, will work for free. Because it's not creating a new bureaucracy. That's a relief.
I don't think you're allowed to criticize other people for being clueless if you think an entire system for tracking and monitoring how millions of people spend their money doesn't require a substantial organizational investment.
On August 29 2011 06:24 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: 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.
That is unemployment insurance, not welfare, they are two entirely different things (in Canada at least, we have both).
i am really surprised that this drug testing nonsense ever actually went through. this seems needlessly cruel, and perpetuates a stereotype about the poor. seriously, what is wrong with the us and florida in particular that would bring them to do this.
On August 29 2011 08:06 LuCiD37 wrote: If anything, the government should issue cards instead of money, and track every purchase made with that money (because it was given to the people for a purpose by the government). Get a clue.
Your proposal of creating an entire new government bureaucracy dedicated to telling poor people what they're allowed to buy shows that this was never about saving taxpayer money so much as it was about punishing poor people.
It doesn't create a new bureaucracy. Also, requiring people who want a free handout from the government to take the same test as every single person who has a job had to take to get that job is punishing poor people?
That has to be the single most clueless and idiotic argument I have ever heard.
Oh, so all of the people who set up the infrastructure for issuing cards and tracking every purchase made by someone on welfare along with the people who will set up the IT, run the helpdesk, and manage these people, will work for free. Because it's not creating a new bureaucracy. That's a relief.
I don't think you're allowed to criticize other people for being clueless if you think an entire system for tracking and monitoring how millions of people spend their money doesn't require a substantial organizational investment.
I have spent a time of my life years ago on government assistance unfortunately. I speak from experience when I state that infrastructure is already in place. This change required little to no reorganization to what they had.
So once again, your argument is both clueless and uninformed. Find a different soapbox on something you perhaps know something about.
I think this law is too idealistic. Sure, it's a good idea in theory that the government shouldn't be supporting people using drugs, but in practice it does not work because of the nature of drug addiction and the fact that we criminalize drug addicts, making it more difficult for them to actually gain employment if they get on the straight and narrow and depriving them of options for them to enter treatment. It's also a very invasive procedure for the government to actually collect your bodily fluid before giving you any sort of assistance. Ironic for a party who is dedicated to making the government a smaller part of your lives, but it is what it is I guess.
It completely ignores the reality of drug problems in urban areas and this will lead to more homelessness/crime and worsen the skid rows of many of Florida's rougher areas (as well as cause further splits between addicts and non addicts who do not want to run the risk of failing a drug test). It's not a solution to the problems plaguing the poor, and by ignoring it and washing their hands of it, the government is not doing anyone any favors.
certain job require a drug screening to get hired. Both receiving social financial assistance and seeking employment should have the same characteristics. Creating a drug free society should alleviate a bigger problem such as freeing up time for police to catch murderers for example. I'm all for this initiative. I myself am very productive and also use drugs recreationally, so I don't see the connection to using drug tests and receiving social assistance, but it will help overall.
Politifact did a pretty good write-up on this subject, specifically related to a Rhode Island Rep who's apparently advocating a Florida-style system in her state.
Some highlights for those attention span-challenged:
"The short answer for Rhode Island is that, under the current system, no state money would be saved because "100 percent of the cash given to TANF recipients is federal money," said Fred Sneesby, spokesman for the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training.
Under current law, the federal government doesn't allow Rhode Island to keep any money it saves by denying benefits to people who test positive for drugs, Sneesby said.
Nor will the federal government pay for such testing."
"So what about the studies that, Costa claimed, showed costs savings in other states?
When we asked her to pinpoint them, she couldn't cite any. She said she had done her research by going on Ask.com and Google.com and posing the question, 'Will drug-testing welfare recipients save money?'"
"To sum up: Costa, when asked about her proposal to test welfare recipients for drugs, didn't predict specific savings for Rhode Island, only that "The studies have shown us that it will be saving us money."
But she was unable to produce any studies to back up that claim.
The ones we found showed that the costs to the state exceed any savings.
And Rhode Island can't save money by kicking people off the welfare rolls because federal funds finance the payments, and the federal government does not allow states to keep money saved through mandatory drug testing.
On August 29 2011 09:38 dreamlogistics wrote: Creating a drug free society should alleviate a bigger problem such as freeing up time for police to catch murderers for example.
The War On Drugs - creating a drug free society since 1971.
Now, will somebody pass me the vodka?
If you want to free police time to catch murderers, legalisation would probably be your best bet.
On August 29 2011 06:24 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: 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.
That's the problem with the US. The people on welfare see it as a permanent source of income.
On my Wife's side of the family, she has a cousin. This dirtbag cousin and the dirtbag boyfriend of hers are on welfare. Neither of them work, or even try to work. Actually, the guy gets a job and gets fired from it, so he can continue to collect without having to work. They have six (6) children, with plenty more on the way I am sure.
Oh, and the cousins parents are on welfare as well. They also own a brand new truck. I know it's new, because they have called me asking for a $550 dollar payment because they can't pay that month for whatever reason.
This is how the US views welfare. Because this is all it is.
No rights are being violated, in order to receive assistance that you have no inherent right to, you must first pass a test. Unlike voting, for example.
This is similar to the way certain federal government grants work, in order to receive funding for infrastructure, states must require alcoholic purchasers to be 21.
On August 29 2011 21:50 MrTortoise wrote: Also there is a gross assumption that bny taking people out of welfare you area ctually goign to save money.
In uk it has been shown tiem and tiem again that the reason for welfare is that it SAVES money in the long run.
UIts a shit ton cheaper for welfare than prison. But then in the states it looks like they want about 50% of the population behind bars by 2050
That research relies on the fact that the taxpayers who would otherwise keep their money wouldn't spend it themselves. Even if taxes werent cut as a result of removing welfare, the working populace would receive more benefit from well-run programs that supported them as opposed to bums. In the US especially, welfare and food stamp programs are abused to death.
On August 29 2011 21:50 MrTortoise wrote: Also there is a gross assumption that bny taking people out of welfare you area ctually goign to save money.
In uk it has been shown tiem and tiem again that the reason for welfare is that it SAVES money in the long run.
Welfare is a good thing, but it meant to be something to keep you ticking along until you find work - not intended as a sustainable lifestyle. I know not everyone wishes to work or to be part of the economy, but if that's the case, don't claim. Simple as. I used to work with the DWP and everyday we'd find another claimant finding more creative ways to get something for virtually nothing, this is not fair for the tax paying majority of a country.
On August 29 2011 21:50 MrTortoise wrote:UIts a shit ton cheaper for welfare than prison. But then in the states it looks like they want about 50% of the population behind bars by 2050
The states actually makes some pennies off it's prison population though, with 1% of it's population incarcerated and prisoners being paid slave wages to manufacture items in workshops to sell to the general population etc. I remember the intellectual and humorous game show, QI, bringing it up.
Touching into matter of welfare, I really hate people who abuse the support of the government for bad habits or just flat out abusing it. I definitely agree with this changes. I hope other state follow soon. I say those who fail the examination can get support for rehabilitation rather than financial.
That's the problem with the US. The people on welfare see it as a permanent source of income.
On my Wife's side of the family, she has a cousin. This dirtbag cousin and the dirtbag boyfriend of hers are on welfare. Neither of them work, or even try to work. Actually, the guy gets a job and gets fired from it, so he can continue to collect without having to work. They have six (6) children, with plenty more on the way I am sure.
Oh, and the cousins parents are on welfare as well. They also own a brand new truck. I know it's new, because they have called me asking for a $550 dollar payment because they can't pay that month for whatever reason.
This is how the US views welfare. Because this is all it is.
Clearly, your one anecdotal example is representative of all people on government assistance.
That's the problem with the US. The people on welfare see it as a permanent source of income.
On my Wife's side of the family, she has a cousin. This dirtbag cousin and the dirtbag boyfriend of hers are on welfare. Neither of them work, or even try to work. Actually, the guy gets a job and gets fired from it, so he can continue to collect without having to work. They have six (6) children, with plenty more on the way I am sure.
Oh, and the cousins parents are on welfare as well. They also own a brand new truck. I know it's new, because they have called me asking for a $550 dollar payment because they can't pay that month for whatever reason.
This is how the US views welfare. Because this is all it is.
Clearly, your one anecdotal example is representative of all people on government assistance.
That's the problem with the US. The people on welfare see it as a permanent source of income.
On my Wife's side of the family, she has a cousin. This dirtbag cousin and the dirtbag boyfriend of hers are on welfare. Neither of them work, or even try to work. Actually, the guy gets a job and gets fired from it, so he can continue to collect without having to work. They have six (6) children, with plenty more on the way I am sure.
Oh, and the cousins parents are on welfare as well. They also own a brand new truck. I know it's new, because they have called me asking for a $550 dollar payment because they can't pay that month for whatever reason.
This is how the US views welfare. Because this is all it is.
Clearly, your one anecdotal example is representative of all people on government assistance.
Just welfare.
No, its not representative of that either. One family of dumbasses does not disprove the use of welfare.
No one should WANT to be on welfare, period. And the people that do, are the type's of people who use drugs.
If you don't want to be on welfare, and don't want to take a drug test. Get a job. Simple, right?
If that means swallowing your pride and working at McDonald's until you can find a better job? Guess what, there are millions of people who do this. What makes you special?
Obviously if you are one of those people who has only been recieving assistance for a month or two, this is not directed at you. Being inbetween jobs and relying on government funds for existence, are two different things.
As so many have said, beggars can't be choosers, this applies to finding a job as well as recieving money from your government. Too many people today feel entitled. How about a little hard work? You might be surprised what you can achieve if you stop being such a lazy shit.
To stay on topic, asking someone to pay for a drug test, and then reimbursing them for that cost if they are clean is, in my opinion, a brilliant way of weeding out drug users from collecting government assistance and using it for drugs. They've even provided a way for you druggies to support your children without ever having to handle the money. I love it.
Granted, this was only a federal judge so it could still go to the Supreme Court. The judge issued the temporary injunction, but something interesting that I hadn't known about this is that the applicants would have to pay for the tests themselves.
EDIT:missed the reimbursement if you are clean... oops
i think that this is a great idea. fuck junkies, if theyre not contributing and sucking up my money, then fuck em. this is an awesome idea, and i would love to see more states do this. people who need welfare legitimately and dont use drugs have nothing to lose with this. the only people who have something to lsoe are druggies, and why should they get my money anyways? i dont work 40 hours a week and lose a large sum of my paycheck just so the state can give it to someone so they can get high. oh wait, i do!
Yeah why don't we just kill em while we're at it. And we can use their corpses to feed livestock!...
What exactly is wrong with so many of you I do not know. There should be systems implemented for rehabilitation. Where does this program leave a junkie once they're turned away from welfare?
Crime.
Great alternative.
You're going to say "They could always get clean". I just said that is the program we should be implementing. Not bar junkies from welfare but require them to attend methods (which I will not disclose*) to clean themselves up. Then welfare would truly be a temporary bridge to a better life instead of just a sinkhole for tax money.
In fact, all welfare should have more stringent improvement requirements built into it instead of the ridiculous amount you can bleed away for relatively nothing that we have as the current system.
*I am not an expert in mental illness or sociologist and have no suggestions for rehabilitation methods. There are, however, people that do have ideas who are also more qualified to present them.
What happened to personal accountability in this world? People get hooked on drugs and it's somehow the duty of the taxpayers to bail them out?
This is literally the only intelligent move Scott has made during his time in office and I fully supported it, and I hope the injunction gets overturned.
On October 25 2011 09:59 WTFZerg wrote: What happened to personal accountability in this world? People get hooked on drugs and it's somehow the duty of the taxpayers to bail them out?
we no longer allow natural selection to eliminate the weak specimens
How people are against this law is beyond me, why would you want your tax dollar going to support someone who obviously isnt going to do anything productive with it...
On October 25 2011 09:59 WTFZerg wrote: What happened to personal accountability in this world? People get hooked on drugs and it's somehow the duty of the taxpayers to bail them out?
we no longer allow natural selection to eliminate the weak specimens
And to make matters worse, someone else is ALWAYS to blame.
Someone killed themselves by ODing on heroin? Well, obviously its the governments fault, because that person shouldn't have gone unnoticed.
Someone threw themselves off a bridge? Well obviously there isn't enough funding into mental health.
Someone was reduced to sleeping in their car? Well obviously there isn't enough homes provided by the government.
No one blames themselves for their shortfalls any more. It's always someone else who is to blame. Sometimes the reason why you're on crack and on welfare is because you didn't stand up at 17 and say "I'm becoming an adult. I need to start to work towards what I want to be." Whether it be studying, or flipping burgers. People feel so "entitled" to wealth and lifestyle.
SGWPIJGPHWE GP:J Now I'm angry for the day! Thanks!
On October 25 2011 10:04 Kingsp4de20 wrote: How people are against this law is beyond me, why would you want your tax dollar going to support someone who obviously isnt going to do anything productive with it...
what about using welfare as a means of survival to get off drugs..?
On October 25 2011 10:04 Kingsp4de20 wrote: How people are against this law is beyond me, why would you want your tax dollar going to support someone who obviously isnt going to do anything productive with it...
Maybe because people are addicted but would still like to eat? Do you value the (actually rather small) part of you income that goes to taxes covering welfare expenses higher than somebody else in the same, rich country not starving? It's not like it would be easy for an addict to get a job or get off the stuff just like that. I've worked with addicts. They have a really tough time getting a leg up as nobody will hire them, getting off the stuff without proper therapy (which they can't pay for and isn't covered) is close to impossible with some drugs (looking at you, meth and crack) and they end up doing anything, legal or illegal, to somehow cover their drug expenses before any other concern. That's how addiction works. Now take away their welfare and they'll just end up much deeper in the hole they're already in, doing more crazy illegal stuff as legal ways to obtain money are scarce for them. You'd end up with more robberies, more theft, just generally more crime which would probably cost more in the long term. We're talking prison expenses, extra police force and still higher overall crime rates for very low income parts of the society. It doesn't make it better to withhold basic coverage. With welfare people have a tiny bit of an option to get out of it, without it their status will be cemented.
On October 25 2011 10:04 Kingsp4de20 wrote: How people are against this law is beyond me, why would you want your tax dollar going to support someone who obviously isnt going to do anything productive with it...
Maybe because people are addicted but would still like to eat? Do you value the (actually rather small) part of you income that goes to taxes covering welfare expenses higher than somebody else in the same, rich country not starving? It's not like it would be easy for an addict to get a job or get off the stuff just like that. I've worked with addicts. They have a really tough time getting a leg up as nobody will hire them, getting off the stuff without proper therapy (which they can't pay for and isn't covered) is close to impossible with some drugs (looking at you, meth and crack) and they end up doing anything, legal or illegal, to somehow cover their drug expenses before any other concern. That's how addiction works. Now take away their welfare and they'll just end up much deeper in the hole they're already in, doing more crazy illegal stuff as legal ways to obtain money are scarce for them. You'd end up with more robberies, more theft, just generally more crime which would probably cost more in the long term. We're talking prison expenses, extra police force and still higher overall crime rates for very low income parts of the society. It doesn't make it better to withhold basic coverage. With welfare people have a tiny bit of an option to get out of it, without it their status will be cemented.
If they cant pay for the drugs how are they going to do them...want to eat don't do drugs. I would rather "the rather small part of my income" go towards someone who isn't and addict or criminal and legitimatly fell on hard times and needs a hand up....
On October 25 2011 10:04 Kingsp4de20 wrote: How people are against this law is beyond me, why would you want your tax dollar going to support someone who obviously isnt going to do anything productive with it...
what about using welfare as a means of survival to get off drugs..?
good idea in theory...If it actually happened that way then sure, but in most cases it doesn't.
On October 25 2011 10:04 Kingsp4de20 wrote: How people are against this law is beyond me, why would you want your tax dollar going to support someone who obviously isnt going to do anything productive with it...
Maybe because people are addicted but would still like to eat? Do you value the (actually rather small) part of you income that goes to taxes covering welfare expenses higher than somebody else in the same, rich country not starving? It's not like it would be easy for an addict to get a job or get off the stuff just like that. I've worked with addicts. They have a really tough time getting a leg up as nobody will hire them, getting off the stuff without proper therapy (which they can't pay for and isn't covered) is close to impossible with some drugs (looking at you, meth and crack) and they end up doing anything, legal or illegal, to somehow cover their drug expenses before any other concern. That's how addiction works. Now take away their welfare and they'll just end up much deeper in the hole they're already in, doing more crazy illegal stuff as legal ways to obtain money are scarce for them. You'd end up with more robberies, more theft, just generally more crime which would probably cost more in the long term. We're talking prison expenses, extra police force and still higher overall crime rates for very low income parts of the society. It doesn't make it better to withhold basic coverage. With welfare people have a tiny bit of an option to get out of it, without it their status will be cemented.
If they cant pay for the drugs how are they going to do them...want to eat don't do drugs. I would rather "the rather small part of my income" go towards someone who isn't and addict or criminal and legitimatly fell on hard times and needs a hand up....
Except the rather small part will be bigger if you introduce a law like that. You'd also just be moving the benefit over to those who have much less of a problem, at least in comparison to addicts. The proposed test also can't provide a good view on possible alcoholism, how do you want to test that? It's much harder to prove, so now alcoholics are better people than crack addicts although they spend the same amount of money on their drug? It's really far from fair, hits the ones at the bottom and doesn't allow for any real option. Remember, addicts spend their money first and foremost on their fix. They will take care of their addiction, then buy food, THEN buy extra drugs from any extra money in relly bad cases. It will be harder to afford food. It will force crime. There have been numerous advances in that direction in many countries, in most it's found to be problematic from consitutional or human rights point of views in addition to the horrible cost effectiveness. The US have had a war on drugs for ages, yet their drug problems are so much bigger than in e. g. the Netherlands (where weed is legal!). You don't fix a national drug problem by prosecuting or banning or withholding money. You fix it by providing basic social standing to those close to the lower end of the society. You could imo make an argument for people having to do the test IF there was free therapy offered to drug addicts. However, you can't force the success of a measure by making it the only option when it really isn't (as money gets there somehow, some way, even if it's a couple coins stolen from your local church).
On October 25 2011 10:04 Kingsp4de20 wrote: How people are against this law is beyond me, why would you want your tax dollar going to support someone who obviously isnt going to do anything productive with it...
Maybe because people are addicted but would still like to eat? Do you value the (actually rather small) part of you income that goes to taxes covering welfare expenses higher than somebody else in the same, rich country not starving? It's not like it would be easy for an addict to get a job or get off the stuff just like that. I've worked with addicts. They have a really tough time getting a leg up as nobody will hire them, getting off the stuff without proper therapy (which they can't pay for and isn't covered) is close to impossible with some drugs (looking at you, meth and crack) and they end up doing anything, legal or illegal, to somehow cover their drug expenses before any other concern. That's how addiction works. Now take away their welfare and they'll just end up much deeper in the hole they're already in, doing more crazy illegal stuff as legal ways to obtain money are scarce for them. You'd end up with more robberies, more theft, just generally more crime which would probably cost more in the long term. We're talking prison expenses, extra police force and still higher overall crime rates for very low income parts of the society. It doesn't make it better to withhold basic coverage. With welfare people have a tiny bit of an option to get out of it, without it their status will be cemented.
If they cant pay for the drugs how are they going to do them...want to eat don't do drugs. I would rather "the rather small part of my income" go towards someone who isn't and addict or criminal and legitimatly fell on hard times and needs a hand up....
Except the rather small part will be bigger if you introduce a law like that. You'd also just be moving the benefit over to those who have much less of a problem, at least in comparison to addicts. The proposed test also can't provide a good view on possible alcoholism, how do you want to test that? It's much harder to prove, so now alcoholics are better people than crack addicts although they spend the same amount of money on their drug? It's really far from fair, hits the ones at the bottom and doesn't allow for any real option. Remember, addicts spend their money first and foremost on their fix. They will take care of their addiction, then buy food, THEN buy extra drugs from any extra money in relly bad cases. It will be harder to afford food. It will force crime. There have been numerous advances in that direction in many countries, in most it's found to be problematic from consitutional or human rights point of views in addition to the horrible cost effectiveness. The US have had a war on drugs for ages, yet their drug problems are so much bigger than in e. g. the Netherlands (where weed is legal!). You don't fix a national drug problem by prosecuting or banning or withholding money. You fix it by providing basic social standing to those close to the lower end of the society. You could imo make an argument for people having to do the test IF there was free therapy offered to drug addicts. However, you can't force the success of a measure by making it the only option when it really isn't (as money gets there somehow, some way, even if it's a couple coins stolen from your local church).
So we continue to support people who dug themselves a hole so deep they can no longer see the sun and then cemented over it? Ridiculous.
Personal accountability must come into account at some point. At some time you have to say enough is enough and stop allowing trash to continue to live the way they do.
On October 25 2011 10:04 Kingsp4de20 wrote: How people are against this law is beyond me, why would you want your tax dollar going to support someone who obviously isnt going to do anything productive with it...
Maybe because people are addicted but would still like to eat? Do you value the (actually rather small) part of you income that goes to taxes covering welfare expenses higher than somebody else in the same, rich country not starving? It's not like it would be easy for an addict to get a job or get off the stuff just like that. I've worked with addicts. They have a really tough time getting a leg up as nobody will hire them, getting off the stuff without proper therapy (which they can't pay for and isn't covered) is close to impossible with some drugs (looking at you, meth and crack) and they end up doing anything, legal or illegal, to somehow cover their drug expenses before any other concern. That's how addiction works. Now take away their welfare and they'll just end up much deeper in the hole they're already in, doing more crazy illegal stuff as legal ways to obtain money are scarce for them. You'd end up with more robberies, more theft, just generally more crime which would probably cost more in the long term. We're talking prison expenses, extra police force and still higher overall crime rates for very low income parts of the society. It doesn't make it better to withhold basic coverage. With welfare people have a tiny bit of an option to get out of it, without it their status will be cemented.
If they cant pay for the drugs how are they going to do them...want to eat don't do drugs. I would rather "the rather small part of my income" go towards someone who isn't and addict or criminal and legitimatly fell on hard times and needs a hand up....
Except the rather small part will be bigger if you introduce a law like that. You'd also just be moving the benefit over to those who have much less of a problem, at least in comparison to addicts. The proposed test also can't provide a good view on possible alcoholism, how do you want to test that? It's much harder to prove, so now alcoholics are better people than crack addicts although they spend the same amount of money on their drug? It's really far from fair, hits the ones at the bottom and doesn't allow for any real option. Remember, addicts spend their money first and foremost on their fix. They will take care of their addiction, then buy food, THEN buy extra drugs from any extra money in relly bad cases. It will be harder to afford food. It will force crime. There have been numerous advances in that direction in many countries, in most it's found to be problematic from consitutional or human rights point of views in addition to the horrible cost effectiveness. The US have had a war on drugs for ages, yet their drug problems are so much bigger than in e. g. the Netherlands (where weed is legal!). You don't fix a national drug problem by prosecuting or banning or withholding money. You fix it by providing basic social standing to those close to the lower end of the society. You could imo make an argument for people having to do the test IF there was free therapy offered to drug addicts. However, you can't force the success of a measure by making it the only option when it really isn't (as money gets there somehow, some way, even if it's a couple coins stolen from your local church).
So we continue to support people who dug themselves a hole so deep they can no longer see the sun and then cemented over it? Ridiculous.
Personal accountability must come into account at some point. At some time you have to say enough is enough and stop allowing trash to continue to live the way they do.
Yup because that has been working so well for your country...
Honestly, we wouldn't even have this problem if welfare was done away with as a whole.
I completely understand that some people use it temporarily as a 'crutch' of some sort but the amount of abusers, or even the idea of having any abusers at all is enough to not use it. Especially when America is in the debt situation that it's in right now.
There are a ton of leeches in the system, so I don't mind this in the least, provided it isn't too much of a bother for those involved (I REALLY doubt it is).
On October 25 2011 11:30 Xarow wrote: Honestly, we wouldn't even have this problem if welfare was done away with as a whole.
I completely understand that some people use it temporarily as a 'crutch' of some sort but the amount of abusers, or even the idea of having any abusers at all is enough to not use it. Especially when America is in the debt situation that it's in right now.
doesn't social security have something like a trillion dollar surplus? or am i thinking of something else?
On October 25 2011 11:30 Xarow wrote: Honestly, we wouldn't even have this problem if welfare was done away with as a whole.
I completely understand that some people use it temporarily as a 'crutch' of some sort but the amount of abusers, or even the idea of having any abusers at all is enough to not use it. Especially when America is in the debt situation that it's in right now.
doesn't social security have something like a trillion dollar surplus? or am i thinking of something else?
lol social security is broken, definitely no surplus there......
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.
This x 100.
I can almost assure that it feels insulting for those who are collecting welfare on the basis of hardships in their life but unfortunately there is not really much other way to weed out people who are fueling drug addictions off tax-payers.
So if I'm on welfare in florida, and I spend $0 on drugs, but have friends who smoke me up at a party, I lose welfare even though I never spent any money on drugs.
This is a case where you're trying punish people in a wrong and stupid way and it won't work. Also, cutting welfare doesn't help anyone, states pay a lot more money for dumb bullshit like freebies for the politicians and inside deals. When are we going to cut those out?
On October 25 2011 14:23 darkscream wrote: So if I'm on welfare in florida, and I spend $0 on drugs, but have friends who smoke me up at a party, I lose welfare even though I never spent any money on drugs.
This is a case where you're trying punish people in a wrong and stupid way and it won't work. Also, cutting welfare doesn't help anyone, states pay a lot more money for dumb bullshit like freebies for the politicians and inside deals. When are we going to cut those out?
Maybe you shouldn't let your "friends smoke you up at a party" then? What kind of fucked up scenario is that? "Sorry Mr Welfare officer, I went to a party with free drugs being thrown at me, I'm really not squandering welfare $ on them!"
Also, maybe if the person in the said scenario wasn't smoking / snorting / injecting hed be able to hold a job?
As to dumb bullshit freebies, its hardly the topic here is it? Every time the govt wants legitimately save money in one area someone has to step in and bitch that its being wasted somewhere else. How is that productive at all? Do you expect them to stop this initiative and focus only on on "dumb bullshit like freebies" or do you think they should work on cutting dumb spending across the board? I know what I'd want them to do...
I agree with this notion completely... If the government is going to be using my tax money on people on welfare, I want to be sure I'm not indirectly funding the drug cartels in Latin America. Lol
My only question is why just drugs? What about alcohol? What about candies? Is someone spending all their welfare money on sweets somewhat better? Money wasted is money wasted. Rather than doing all kinds of fancy tests, do a simple screening process in case of doubt. Now, with law like that everyone applying for welfare will have to be tested, tests costs as well and if the percentage of people they will actually filter out will be relatively small it will be actually bigger waste of money in the end.
All in all the system of welfare all around the world is flawed, but most politicians just look for solutions that will look nicely on their press conference rather than for ones that will actually solve problems. I doubt it will be change much, or bring any real savings.
On June 10 2011 04:25 SpoR wrote: I mean it makes sense but yea the government testing for drugs without probable cause is kind of strange. Guilty before proven innocent kind of thing.
Except guilty before innocent relates to being tried for a crime. This is merely protecting hard-earned taxpayer money before it is spent on free food for their fellow-citizens. Who knows, this may even help people overcome drug addictions?
On October 25 2011 16:05 SynthFae wrote: My only question is why just drugs? What about alcohol? What about candies? Is someone spending all their welfare money on sweets somewhat better? Money wasted is money wasted. Rather than doing all kinds of fancy tests, do a simple screening process in case of doubt. Now, with law like that everyone applying for welfare will have to be tested, tests costs as well and if the percentage of people they will actually filter out will be relatively small it will be actually bigger waste of money in the end.
All in all the system of welfare all around the world is flawed, but most politicians just look for solutions that will look nicely on their press conference rather than for ones that will actually solve problems. I doubt it will be change much, or bring any real savings.
On October 25 2011 16:05 SynthFae wrote: My only question is why just drugs? What about alcohol? What about candies? Is someone spending all their welfare money on sweets somewhat better? Money wasted is money wasted. Rather than doing all kinds of fancy tests, do a simple screening process in case of doubt. Now, with law like that everyone applying for welfare will have to be tested, tests costs as well and if the percentage of people they will actually filter out will be relatively small it will be actually bigger waste of money in the end.
All in all the system of welfare all around the world is flawed, but most politicians just look for solutions that will look nicely on their press conference rather than for ones that will actually solve problems. I doubt it will be change much, or bring any real savings.
How do you propose we do a 'Candies Test' then?
o.O
Dangle a candy in front of the person, if they greedily grab it they are guilty. Flawless!
But on a more serious note - as i said, screening process. I'm not sure how it's called in English, nor if it's common practice, but here we have something called Environmental Interview, conducted by either police patrol or social worker, asking around Your friends, family, neighbours, co-workers/class mates.
A few weeks ago, a US District Court judge ruled drug screening for TANF recipients violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment). Article can be found here. I fully support the judge's ruling.
Of the more than 4,000 people tested, only 2.6% tested positive for drugs (the majority of which was marijuana). That's more than the state average (which is 8.1%). Despite Florida's claim it would save the state a significant amount of money, it actually costs the state more to implement it.
It unfairly targets minorities and the poor who are more likely to need government assistance because of the government and society's actions towards them in the past.
Family members of those who do drugs face tremendous consequences by losing TANF benefits (eg., children and spouses).
It ignores the fact that drug abuse and mental/psychiatric disorders are often linked. The US, as I imagine we all are aware, put mental health on the low priority list.
People in poverty are more likely to face numerous barriers to education, have poor job skills, and low psychological functioning that impedes their ability to get out of poverty.
It ignores that current understanding of drug addiction which physically alters one's brain to the point that people continue to use even though they want to quit but cannot do so.
More importantly, we're ignoring the fact that drug use in the United States has significantly declined since its peak in the 1980s yet we pretend as if its increasing.
Even among those who do have jobs, many cannot find a job that pays a livable wage without being a TANF recipient.
Even among those who do use drugs and receive government money, they are more likely to enter treatment and finish it than those who do not receive government money.
These findings have been consistently replicated in study after study (East, 1999; Stromwall, 2001; Montoya & Brown, 2007; Dandizger, et al., 2000; Delvia, et al., 2000; Olson & Pavetti, 1996; Jayakody, et al., 2000, Raynor & Williams, 2012, Pollack & Reuters, 2006).
By placing MORE barriers to employment and services that help people get out of poverty, you do the exact opposite. You increase the risk that they become involved in crime and drugs. Budd (2010) sums it up nicely: "The vast majority of the legislation imposes testing without regard to suspect drug use, reflecting the implicit assumption that the poor are inherently predisposed to culpable conduct and thus may be subject to class-based intrusions that would be inarguable impermissible if inflicted on the less destitute."
On January 15 2014 05:05 Dknight wrote: A few weeks ago, a US District Court judge ruled drug screening for TANF recipients violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment). Article can be found here. I fully support the judge's ruling.
Of the more than 4,000 people tested, only 2.6% tested positive for drugs (the majority of which was marijuana). That's more than the state average (which is 8.1%). Despite Florida's claim it would save the state a significant amount of money, it actually costs the state more to implement it.
It unfairly targets minorities and the poor who are more likely to need government assistance because of the government and society's actions towards them in the past.
Family members of those who do drugs face tremendous consequences by losing TANF benefits (eg., children and spouses).
It ignores the fact that drug abuse and mental/psychiatric disorders are often linked. The US, as I imagine we all are aware, put mental health on the low priority list.
People in poverty are more likely to face numerous barriers to education, have poor job skills, and low psychological functioning that impedes their ability to get out of poverty.
It ignores that current understanding of drug addiction which physically alters one's brain to the point that people continue to use even though they want to quit but cannot do so.
More importantly, we're ignoring the fact that drug use in the United States has significantly declined since its peak in the 1980s yet we pretend as if its increasing.
Even among those who do have jobs, many cannot find a job that pays a livable wage without being a TANF recipient.
Even among those who do use drugs and receive government money, they are more likely to enter treatment and finish it than those who do not receive government money.
These findings have been consistently replicated in study after study (East, 1999; Stromwall, 2001; Montoya & Brown, 2007; Dandizger, et al., 2000; Delvia, et al., 2000; Olson & Pavetti, 1996; Jayakody, et al., 2000, Raynor & Williams, 2012, Pollack & Reuters, 2006).
By placing MORE barriers to employment and services that help people get out of poverty, you do the exact opposite. You increase the risk that they become involved in crime and drugs. Budd (2010) sums it up nicely: "The vast majority of the legislation imposes testing without regard to suspect drug use, reflecting the implicit assumption that the poor are inherently predisposed to culpable conduct and thus may be subject to class-based intrusions that would be inarguable impermissible if inflicted on the less destitute."
Sounds very reasonable to me. I know it's a contentious subject, so will be interesting to hear counterarguments (too lazy to dig through thread). I would think the "cost" of denying people who need the help is greater than allowing some to abuse. Similar to how throwing an innocent person in jail is worse than letting a guilty one go free.
This drug testing is a classic example of what conservatives say liberals always do. They have their 'hearts' in the right place but what they are trying to do is wrong.
While it may make you feel like it's the right thing to do, it's obviously not. If you stay in the land of rhetoric it's easy to make sense of a policy that says "no government aid for those who use drugs." Unfortunately the reality of implementing something like that has far reaching consequences that go beyond the goal (as mentioned above).
Fact of the matter is welfare would be an even smaller program if we started treating the problem instead of the symptoms. The undeniable massive transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% is at the root of most of our social welfare problems regarding government assistance.
The way our system is currently designed many of the negative outcomes are inevitable. The country only has so many jobs that actually pay a wage that doesn't require government subsidization so inevitably some of the best and most honest and hard working people will find themselves in need of government assistance.
If you really wanted to get people off of government assistance you should advocate for large corporations to slash executive pay to parity early post WWII rates of executives when compared to the average employee.
Something along the lines of voluntarily limiting their pay to about 30x more than the lowest paid employee, far from perfect but still a huge improvement. 15x would be better but then you would need to pay $66,000 to make a million a year (before taxes[but those taxes would be a hell of a lot lower if you got to put more of the burden on your employees by paying them more.])
Drug testing welfare recipients is based on the fantasy that many, if not most, if not nearly all welfare recipients sit around and engage in self-gratification and little else. Just like most people in general, most people receiving welfare benefits do not do drugs. There is no reason to think that receiving welfare makes you more likely to do drugs, or that doing drugs makes you more likely to receive welfare. It just doesn't make sense. Sure, many people know someone on food stamps and government health insurance and housing assistance with his Obamaphone who smokes weed and drinks all day, but that person is by no means representative of people receiving welfare.
I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
On January 15 2014 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote: Something along the lines of voluntarily limiting their pay to about 30x more than the lowest paid employee, far from perfect but still a huge improvement.
No, No, No and NO. Absolutely not. This sets a very bad precedent. It will go from voluntary to mandatory sure as shit.
Fact of the matter is welfare would be an even smaller program if we started treating the problem instead of the symptoms. The undeniable massive transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% is at the root of most of our social welfare problems regarding government assistance.
This "undeniable transfer of wealth" has in fact not occurred, as anyone looking honestly at the statistics can easily see.
Anyone who tells you that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor is either lying to you or doesn't know what they are talking about.
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
So they should use tax payer money to sit around and do drugs and be a drain on society? That's a childish and cruel thing to do to tax payers, to force them to pay for someone who will never be of use to society who will simply sit around and do illegal drugs and never work on getting any sort of job. Unfortunately yes, implementing a system of defamatory drug screening for welfare does cost more than letting the drug users sit on it, so the system is then not worth keeping.
Fact of the matter is welfare would be an even smaller program if we started treating the problem instead of the symptoms. The undeniable massive transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% is at the root of most of our social welfare problems regarding government assistance.
This "undeniable transfer of wealth" has in fact not occurred, as anyone looking honestly at the statistics can easily see.
Anyone who tells you that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor is either lying to you or doesn't know what they are talking about.
Ya, that line is usually just to stir up the populists. Everyone has gotten richer, the rich have simply gotten richer even faster. It's funny how you argue drug testing is classest, and then goes on to demonize another class.
edit: I'd probably agree with Dknight though, if testing cost so much more, most likely the costs are greater than the benefits of not giving a few druggies money.
Fact of the matter is welfare would be an even smaller program if we started treating the problem instead of the symptoms. The undeniable massive transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% is at the root of most of our social welfare problems regarding government assistance.
This "undeniable transfer of wealth" has in fact not occurred, as anyone looking honestly at the statistics can easily see.
Anyone who tells you that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor is either lying to you or doesn't know what they are talking about.
I am totally confused as to how you guys look at the statistics of less people having more wealth, and the avg/min wage buying less now than it did in 1950 and say that everyone is getting richer.
The closest article I found supporting the insane idea that everyone is getting richer and at little to no cost to the poor but it pretty much just shows why such a viewpoint is totally nonsensical.
"The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows."
That means instead of the top 1% getting a raise they could of DOUBLED the entire annual income of the bottom 20% of ALL Americans without losing a nickel compared to previous years.
So you mean to say 1% of Americans 'earning' a RAISE equal to the entire annual income of 20% American workers didn't come at the 20%'s expense who saw no real wage increase?
American workers are more productive than they have been in decades but getting paid less than they used to, and executives salaries have been growing further and further away from their average workers salary. This is indisputable evidence that it has come at a cost to the poorest among us and even well up into the bottom 80% of income earners in America.
If you can't understand that than I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
you are right, instead of drug addicts coercing people to give money to feed their drug habit, you have the government coercing people to give money to drug addicts to feed their drug habit. This is clearly more civilized because the government is involved.
To reduce bank robberies, I suggest giving money to anybody who claims they are going to rob a bank to feed their family. If you are against this you want people to DIE and a cruel son of a bitch.
How much does a drug test cost? Cost of test vs Amount of money saved due to people no longer on welfare due to failing, probably not worth it, also not spending it on welfare would probably lead to more crime for people to get there money for there fix.
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
Because drug addiction is expensive and almost always self-inflicted. Kinda erodes most people's sympathy, even when it's for legal drugs. ...of course, there are other choices liable to erode my and many others' sympathies. Such as reproducing when you can't afford children. That one's a stickier wicket, though, because there's an innocent involved. Can't very well separate aid for a child from aid for the parent, unless you're willing to separate child from parent.
Fact of the matter is welfare would be an even smaller program if we started treating the problem instead of the symptoms. The undeniable massive transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% is at the root of most of our social welfare problems regarding government assistance.
This "undeniable transfer of wealth" has in fact not occurred, as anyone looking honestly at the statistics can easily see.
Anyone who tells you that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor is either lying to you or doesn't know what they are talking about.
I am totally confused as to how you guys look at the statistics of less people having more wealth, and the avg/min wage buying less now than it did in 1950 and say that everyone is getting richer.
The closest article I found supporting the insane idea that everyone is getting richer and at little to no cost to the poor but it pretty much just shows why such a viewpoint is totally nonsensical.
"The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows."
That means instead of the top 1% getting a raise they could of DOUBLED the entire annual income of the bottom 20% of ALL Americans without losing a nickel compared to previous years.
So you mean to say 1% of Americans 'earning' a RAISE equal to the entire annual income of 20% American workers didn't come at the 20%'s expense who saw no real wage increase?
American workers are more productive than they have been in decades but getting paid less than they used to, and executives salaries have been growing further and further away from their average workers salary. This is indisputable evidence that it has come at a cost to the poorest among us and even well up into the bottom 80% of income earners in America.
If you can't understand that than I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.
None of that shows that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor. Again, to claim that there has been a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich reveals either dishonesty. ignorance, or confusion. You want a country where the rich actually have gotten richer at the expense of the poor, look at Russia.
It beggars belief that the rich increasing their income has somehow caused the inflation that is the reason that a dollar buys less today than it did in 1950 or 1960. There's a leap of evidence and logic there, just as there is in the use of the contention that "the top 1% increased their wealth as much as the bottom 20% earns entirely," which in no way proves that the increase in wealth was "transferred" or taken from the bottom 20% to the top 1%. If we accept the assumption that if this income did not go to the top 1% it would have gone to the bottom 20% then certainly, but there is no actual reason to think that that would have been the case.
The CBO data shows that from 1979 - 2007 incomes for the poor rose 18%, the middle class 40%, the top 81-99% rose 65%, and the top 1% rose 275%. Even if you think that is terribly out of whack and prefer to ignore that by any material measure the poor have risen farther than that 18% suggests, it still cannot possibly constitute the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor. The poverty rate has fallen from 26% in 1968 to 16% now. How is that possible if the rich have been getting richer at the expense of the poor? And on and on and on. But go make a thread about income inequality and how we need to end these mythical wealth transfers to save society if you want to continue chicken littleing about it.
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
So they should use tax payer money to sit around and do drugs and be a drain on society? That's a childish and cruel thing to do to tax payers, to force them to pay for someone who will never be of use to society who will simply sit around and do illegal drugs and never work on getting any sort of job. Unfortunately yes, implementing a system of defamatory drug screening for welfare does cost more than letting the drug users sit on it, so the system is then not worth keeping.
So because you can't deny the minority of people who do drugs from getting assistance in feeding themselves and their children, you'd rather deny EVERYONE even those in need who have jobs and are good people in need of a little help instead and make their children starve. Because what's worse than a drug addict getting free food? A child being denied food because her parents did nothing wrong at all and are on hard times.
Hopefully everyone agrees that a welfare drug-testing program is counterproductive if it fails to save money. If it did actually save an appreciable sum, then the questions of "is it right? is it a violation of privacy?" would hold greater relevance.
On January 15 2014 15:46 DeepElemBlues wrote: The CBO data shows that from 1979 - 2007 incomes for the poor rose 18%, the middle class 40%, the top 81-99% rose 65%, and the top 1% rose 275%.
Income measured against the price of what? Housing, transportation, and basic foodstuffs?
for reply to this topic: they should use more money for treat the people who take drugs ( that realy hard to stop and most of them would be okay to do amazing jobs or help society if they are helped and cured )
many of them are good people and even more of them dont even take drugs on welfare ( how they can pay for it when usualy they dont have enough just to eat LOL ??? )
this law was just making them even more miserable and saying that their fault.... just wrong, you guy know how hard it is to stop smoke? hard drugs can be 5-10X TIME more hard to stop.....they should get help not remove the money they got.
that not like the money they got that high anyway and the reason the money statue co curently like that also not the reason.... rich people want midle-low class to bash on the welfares people so people dont see the problem lie with the rich people....
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
So they should use tax payer money to sit around and do drugs and be a drain on society? That's a childish and cruel thing to do to tax payers, to force them to pay for someone who will never be of use to society who will simply sit around and do illegal drugs and never work on getting any sort of job. Unfortunately yes, implementing a system of defamatory drug screening for welfare does cost more than letting the drug users sit on it, so the system is then not worth keeping.
So because you can't deny the minority of people who do drugs from getting assistance in feeding themselves and their children, you'd rather deny EVERYONE even those in need who have jobs and are good people in need of a little help instead and make their children starve. Because what's worse than a drug addict getting free food? A child being denied food because her parents did nothing wrong at all and are on hard times.
Please read what I said before jumping in with your sensationalist absurd statements. I said drug addicts should not get tax money to fuel their addiction because they are a drain on society and will never be of use to it. I never mentioned anyone other than drug users. I am very much for government assistance for people who actually work or are looking for work, or in some way contribute to society. These drug users who sit on welfare however, contribute nothing to society and paying for them is a drain on society.
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
So they should use tax payer money to sit around and do drugs and be a drain on society? That's a childish and cruel thing to do to tax payers, to force them to pay for someone who will never be of use to society who will simply sit around and do illegal drugs and never work on getting any sort of job. Unfortunately yes, implementing a system of defamatory drug screening for welfare does cost more than letting the drug users sit on it, so the system is then not worth keeping.
So because you can't deny the minority of people who do drugs from getting assistance in feeding themselves and their children, you'd rather deny EVERYONE even those in need who have jobs and are good people in need of a little help instead and make their children starve. Because what's worse than a drug addict getting free food? A child being denied food because her parents did nothing wrong at all and are on hard times.
Please read what I said before jumping in with your sensationalist absurd statements. I said drug addicts should not get tax money to fuel their addiction because they are a drain on society and will never be of use to it. I never mentioned anyone other than drug users. I am very much for government assistance for people who actually work or are looking for work, or in some way contribute to society. These drug users who sit on welfare however, contribute nothing to society and paying for them is a drain on society.
LOL, how about cure the drugs addict so they can help society, you talk like they should just die, what you do for society YOU?? do we need you that much??
just because you got a normal job you are wortly for the society ? you know they are 20 people behind you who could better that you and you just take them the place?
it is a known fact that poverty leads to social environnement in which people are more expose to drug use. example to support this fact : Hobos, probably living in third world health condition (population most hit with tuberculosis - in occident- , along with natives but that's another story) are for the most part drug addicts.
this kind of policy will then, remove alot of people their rights to recieve social services, plus who is the state to tell you what not to buy with YOUR money, that's liberty violation right there. are we just gonna let these people die of hunger?
how is it fair, when we know that wallstreet is all over cocain but we don't go tell them what to do with their money.
those who think that this public welfare money is only gonna sink into poachers' pockets, think again. public money that is lost in fiscal evasion (by our wallstreet folks), political corruption, war, in much more important dollarwise. if it is true that it is "lost money, these people will still manage to buy their drug AND feed.
long story short, poverty, drug use, increasing every year in USA is the mirror of society's biggest illnest : capitalism.
To be fair, illicit drug use in the United States has been declining over the past 20 years. If you consider all other drugs besides marijuana, the decline is even greater across all age groups. However, licit drugs and prescription drug abuse has only increased.
And as an aside, Rick Scott transferred ownership of Solantic, his drug testing company (valued at over $60 million with 32 locations in Florida as of 2 years ago) to his wife..So clearly, huge conflict of interest there and should have raised a lot more ethical questions for personal profit.
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
So they should use tax payer money to sit around and do drugs and be a drain on society? That's a childish and cruel thing to do to tax payers, to force them to pay for someone who will never be of use to society who will simply sit around and do illegal drugs and never work on getting any sort of job. Unfortunately yes, implementing a system of defamatory drug screening for welfare does cost more than letting the drug users sit on it, so the system is then not worth keeping.
You're making several leaps of logic, the foremost of which is that a person who uses drugs and is on welfare can't contribute to society. There's all sorts of drug abuse, and I haven't seen it proven that most abusers can't hold down minimum wage jobs (just a note: even holding a minimum wage job will put you in the welfare bracket.)
Second is the assumption that a sizable portion of welfare recipients do drugs. This is not proven either.
Now, if the fundamental issue is using tax payers' money to pay people that use drugs and that issue is so repugnant to you, then I have an idea that'll really put pressure on them and take care of tax payers' money.
We should drug test (including marijuana) for student loans. And home mortgage interest deductions. And charitable contributions, tax credits, etc.
The truth of the matter is that something like 96% of Americans receive money from government social programs and a whole lot of them are drug users. But only one group in particular gets constantly demonized, and it's the group least able to defend themselves.
When Nancy Reagan was peddling her terrible anti-drug campaigns in the 80's, do you think the bankers and investors on Wall St. were ever at risk, given the widespread drug abuse?
The biggest welfare queens, the politicians, are never included in their own drug testing bills. Should always start with the people proposing laws on the rest of the population.
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
So they should use tax payer money to sit around and do drugs and be a drain on society? That's a childish and cruel thing to do to tax payers, to force them to pay for someone who will never be of use to society who will simply sit around and do illegal drugs and never work on getting any sort of job. Unfortunately yes, implementing a system of defamatory drug screening for welfare does cost more than letting the drug users sit on it, so the system is then not worth keeping.
So because you can't deny the minority of people who do drugs from getting assistance in feeding themselves and their children, you'd rather deny EVERYONE even those in need who have jobs and are good people in need of a little help instead and make their children starve. Because what's worse than a drug addict getting free food? A child being denied food because her parents did nothing wrong at all and are on hard times.
Please read what I said before jumping in with your sensationalist absurd statements. I said drug addicts should not get tax money to fuel their addiction because they are a drain on society and will never be of use to it. I never mentioned anyone other than drug users. I am very much for government assistance for people who actually work or are looking for work, or in some way contribute to society. These drug users who sit on welfare however, contribute nothing to society and paying for them is a drain on society.
LOL, how about cure the drugs addict so they can help society, you talk like they should just die, what you do for society YOU?? do we need you that much??
just because you got a normal job you are wortly for the society ? you know they are 20 people behind you who could better that you and you just take them the place?
so ??
I agree with this sentiment. There are way too many people acting like they're so good for society just because they have normal jobs, despite some of the views they may spout. Such views are only going to take away from civilised society. I don't care if someone is a receptionist, office worker, IT help desk, high-up IT tech guru, lawyer, banker, marketing advisor, hotel manager or some CEO of a company, you are unlikely to be doing good for everyone and in reality, most people are only doing their jobs for themselves, for their own profit. People further their careers and aim for higher income for the same reason. One is not likely to directly "contribute to society" by climbing the corporate ladder, nor by doing the mundane lower work. One could make a case for certain jobs, doctors for example*, but in general, people need to drop that attitude. I find it especially surprising that it still occurs since the global financial crisis, when so many highly skilled people find themselves struggling to find jobs or else taking far lower paying jobs while others fortunate enough to have just that much more experience, connections or just a solid grounding with that company make complaints about how a small portion of their money is being given away to sustain many many other lives. Selfish bastards, stop ya whingin'! That's my take on it, anyway. :Þ
...except that the last time I had to go to hospital, they nearly failed in their key motto of "Do no harm" (or whatever it is) by sending me home with antibiotics "just in case"...antibiotics that I am allergic to, which I had made very clear to both the main doctor and main nurse tending to me. It's not like the front of the packet clearly advertised what it contained! You have to check the back to read what it contains, to find out that they might just be trying to kill you...
Also, hunts might have an explanation other than expecting them to die, but he hasn't given it yet and yes, I agree he sounds pretty merciless and/or uncaring. I agree on the ideal of "not wasting their money on those who just use it for continued drug abuse" but you can't just take it away either. Idealism and realism: One must maintain some of each, seeking the first where possible but maintaining perspective of where it is less than practical. We shouldn't stray too far from ideals though. Letting people die because "well fuck 'em" is too far from ideals.
Violate people's privacy and spend public money in order to be a morality police while also wasting the time of medical professionals. If people are found having used drugs while being on welfare, it costs even more money to the state and everybody loses. Thumbs up, great success.
Fact of the matter is welfare would be an even smaller program if we started treating the problem instead of the symptoms. The undeniable massive transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% is at the root of most of our social welfare problems regarding government assistance.
This "undeniable transfer of wealth" has in fact not occurred, as anyone looking honestly at the statistics can easily see.
Anyone who tells you that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor is either lying to you or doesn't know what they are talking about.
I am totally confused as to how you guys look at the statistics of less people having more wealth, and the avg/min wage buying less now than it did in 1950 and say that everyone is getting richer.
The closest article I found supporting the insane idea that everyone is getting richer and at little to no cost to the poor but it pretty much just shows why such a viewpoint is totally nonsensical.
"The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows."
That means instead of the top 1% getting a raise they could of DOUBLED the entire annual income of the bottom 20% of ALL Americans without losing a nickel compared to previous years.
So you mean to say 1% of Americans 'earning' a RAISE equal to the entire annual income of 20% American workers didn't come at the 20%'s expense who saw no real wage increase?
American workers are more productive than they have been in decades but getting paid less than they used to, and executives salaries have been growing further and further away from their average workers salary. This is indisputable evidence that it has come at a cost to the poorest among us and even well up into the bottom 80% of income earners in America.
If you can't understand that than I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.
None of that shows that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor. Again, to claim that there has been a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich reveals either dishonesty. ignorance, or confusion. You want a country where the rich actually have gotten richer at the expense of the poor, look at Russia.
It beggars belief that the rich increasing their income has somehow caused the inflation that is the reason that a dollar buys less today than it did in 1950 or 1960. There's a leap of evidence and logic there, just as there is in the use of the contention that "the top 1% increased their wealth as much as the bottom 20% earns entirely," which in no way proves that the increase in wealth was "transferred" or taken from the bottom 20% to the top 1%. If we accept the assumption that if this income did not go to the top 1% it would have gone to the bottom 20% then certainly, but there is no actual reason to think that that would have been the case.
The CBO data shows that from 1979 - 2007 incomes for the poor rose 18%, the middle class 40%, the top 81-99% rose 65%, and the top 1% rose 275%. Even if you think that is terribly out of whack and prefer to ignore that by any material measure the poor have risen farther than that 18% suggests, it still cannot possibly constitute the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor. The poverty rate has fallen from 26% in 1968 to 16% now. How is that possible if the rich have been getting richer at the expense of the poor? And on and on and on. But go make a thread about income inequality and how we need to end these mythical wealth transfers to save society if you want to continue chicken littleing about it.
Oh I see, you're totally delusional. I'm guessing you are one of those that says slavery didn't enrich people at the expense of the slaves because their quality of life has improved from Africa...
Fact of the matter is welfare would be an even smaller program if we started treating the problem instead of the symptoms. The undeniable massive transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% is at the root of most of our social welfare problems regarding government assistance.
This "undeniable transfer of wealth" has in fact not occurred, as anyone looking honestly at the statistics can easily see.
Anyone who tells you that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor is either lying to you or doesn't know what they are talking about.
I am totally confused as to how you guys look at the statistics of less people having more wealth, and the avg/min wage buying less now than it did in 1950 and say that everyone is getting richer.
The closest article I found supporting the insane idea that everyone is getting richer and at little to no cost to the poor but it pretty much just shows why such a viewpoint is totally nonsensical.
"The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows."
That means instead of the top 1% getting a raise they could of DOUBLED the entire annual income of the bottom 20% of ALL Americans without losing a nickel compared to previous years.
So you mean to say 1% of Americans 'earning' a RAISE equal to the entire annual income of 20% American workers didn't come at the 20%'s expense who saw no real wage increase?
American workers are more productive than they have been in decades but getting paid less than they used to, and executives salaries have been growing further and further away from their average workers salary. This is indisputable evidence that it has come at a cost to the poorest among us and even well up into the bottom 80% of income earners in America.
If you can't understand that than I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.
None of that shows that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor. Again, to claim that there has been a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich reveals either dishonesty. ignorance, or confusion. You want a country where the rich actually have gotten richer at the expense of the poor, look at Russia.
It beggars belief that the rich increasing their income has somehow caused the inflation that is the reason that a dollar buys less today than it did in 1950 or 1960. There's a leap of evidence and logic there, just as there is in the use of the contention that "the top 1% increased their wealth as much as the bottom 20% earns entirely," which in no way proves that the increase in wealth was "transferred" or taken from the bottom 20% to the top 1%. If we accept the assumption that if this income did not go to the top 1% it would have gone to the bottom 20% then certainly, but there is no actual reason to think that that would have been the case.
The CBO data shows that from 1979 - 2007 incomes for the poor rose 18%, the middle class 40%, the top 81-99% rose 65%, and the top 1% rose 275%. Even if you think that is terribly out of whack and prefer to ignore that by any material measure the poor have risen farther than that 18% suggests, it still cannot possibly constitute the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor. The poverty rate has fallen from 26% in 1968 to 16% now. How is that possible if the rich have been getting richer at the expense of the poor? And on and on and on. But go make a thread about income inequality and how we need to end these mythical wealth transfers to save society if you want to continue chicken littleing about it.
Oh I see, you're totally delusional. I'm guessing you are one of those that says slavery didn't enrich people at the expense of the slaves because their quality of life has improved from Africa...
"fuck these numbers things, easier to imply this guy likes the KKK or something"
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
No offense but I find it remarkable that anyone would hold this opinion
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
No offense but I find it remarkable that anyone would hold this opinion
Seeing as his opinion is extremely exaggerated and not thought out at all I don't even think he'd hold that view if he thought about what he just said for more than two minutes.
Not having welfare doesn't mean that all the drug addicts die, it doesn't mean that drug addicts have to get their money illegally, it doesn't mean a lot of things. I'm pretty sure the person you're talking to just had an emotional thought and tried getting it out asap..
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
No offense but I find it remarkable that anyone would hold this opinion
Seeing as his opinion is extremely exaggerated and not thought out at all I don't even think he'd hold that view if he thought about what he just said for more than two minutes.
Not having welfare doesn't mean that all the drug addicts die, it doesn't mean that drug addicts have to get their money illegally, it doesn't mean a lot of things. I'm pretty sure the person you're talking to just had an emotional thought and tried getting it out asap..
What about the people who drink or smoke? They're doing drugs too, so we should cut their welfare. Might as well ban fat people too because they're addicted to food and will be wasting our tax dollars on it. Also people who have sex, we don't want to have to pay for condoms. Drug testing for welfare is just a propaganda tool for elected officials. They get morons all hyped up by saying that them drug addicts on the street with their cracks and meths and heroins and pots are stealing your tax dollars BYAH! They further inform you about this shadow organization of people who do nothing but do drugs all day and steal your tax dollars (sounds like something that happens at the top of wealth distribution too) and they tell you that they are many in number. Then they say they'll do something about it and then you vote for them.
Since they say they're trying to effectively legislate morality, why don't they target the fats, the drunks, the smokers, and the fuckers? Because they don't give a shit about legislating morality. They're just building on and using a negative popular perception to gain votes by throwing a disliked minority group under the wagon.
"It ignores that current understanding of drug addiction which physically alters one's brain to the point that people continue to use even though they want to quit but cannot do so."
That's a bunch of bs I don't believe in anymore based on my experience and I don't think anyone should.
I was on morphine for close to a year, initially due to chronic pain associated with my illness and towards the end I was taking pretty large doses (up to ~400mg a day, while the minimum lethal dose is set at 200mg, 60mg for people sensitive to it). While I was on it, I quickly started to enjoy its effects and I started to like it and request prescriptions for higher and higher doses. However, one day I decided that it was enough and I didn't want to be negatively affecting my daily mental and physical performance anymore. If I wanted to, I could've continued taking it, getting prescriptions for it for the rest of my life and having it reimbursed due to the nature of my illness. But I decided that I wanted to quit. The withdrawal was painful for a few days and I was on my own. Frankly, it was as much of a nightmare as I can imagine something to be. But after it was out of my system, I was done with it. Sure, psychological effects persist and sometimes I feel like taking a large dose and nod off, especially when I'm having a few bad days. But I DECIDE not to.
After all of this, I have absolutely no sympathy for drug addicts. They are drug addicts because they CHOOSE to be, not because something tells them that they can't quit. If I can relatively easily quit a drug as addictive as morphine with my addictive personality, anyone can.
On a side note, I love the concept of this law and I feel it should exist everywhere in a refined form, if it can be good ROI. People who aren't on drugs have nothing to worry about here - one test and they get their money. If you want to get money other members of the society are funding so you can live an easier life yourself, you should at least not feel so freakin entitled. And drug addicts can go somewhere else to fund their addiction instead of the tax payers.
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
No offense but I find it remarkable that anyone would hold this opinion
Seeing as his opinion is extremely exaggerated and not thought out at all I don't even think he'd hold that view if he thought about what he just said for more than two minutes.
Not having welfare doesn't mean that all the drug addicts die, it doesn't mean that drug addicts have to get their money illegally, it doesn't mean a lot of things. I'm pretty sure the person you're talking to just had an emotional thought and tried getting it out asap..
What about the people who drink or smoke? They're doing drugs too, so we should cut their welfare. Might as well ban fat people too because they're addicted to food and will be wasting our tax dollars on it. Also people who have sex, we don't want to have to pay for condoms. Drug testing for welfare is just a propaganda tool for elected officials. They get morons all hyped up by saying that them drug addicts on the street with their cracks and meths and heroins and pots are stealing your tax dollars BYAH! They further inform you about this shadow organization of people who do nothing but do drugs all day and steal your tax dollars (sounds like something that happens at the top of wealth distribution too) and they tell you that they are many in number. Then they say they'll do something about it and then you vote for them.
Since they say they're trying to effectively legislate morality, why don't they target the fats, the drunks, the smokers, and the fuckers? Because they don't give a shit about legislating morality. They're just building on and using a negative popular perception to gain votes by throwing a disliked minority group under the wagon.
we actually do do those things. Food stamps can't be used to buy cigarettes or alcohol or fast food. A lot of states have been passing laws banning the use of benefits cards from accessing ATMs in strip clubs and bars and gambling establishments.
But I do want to pay for their condoms. That's a good use of tax payer money if it prevents unplanned pregnancies for people that already can't support themselves.
I'd be more supportive of drug-testing for welfare if the implementation of it didn't cost more than the amount it would save (looking at it from a utilitarian standpoint). But because it doesn't, I wouldn't agree with it.
Playing devil's advocate and assuming that it would save money if implemented, I probably hold an opinion in the minority (at least from the TL posts I've read since this was bumped) that you probably shouldn't get money from the government if you've tested positive for drugs. If you're getting payed by the government for having a low income, I don't think it's ethically responsible to spend that money on drugs. I'd be inclined to include alcohol and people with gambling problems with this list as well (if there were a good way to test for that, anyways). If you're spending your welfare money on drugs/alcohol/gambling etc, then you don't need it as much as you'd think.
On January 16 2014 01:10 crazyweasel wrote: this kind of policy will then, remove alot of people their rights to recieve social services, plus who is the state to tell you what not to buy with YOUR money, that's liberty violation right there. are we just gonna let these people die of hunger?
When the state is handing out taxpayer money, why should they decide not to test the people they're giving it out to? Why would you want your money that's supposed to be helping poor people pay bills etc. instead be used for drugs instead? It's not an issue of what people do with money they've earned, but rather money they've been given. If you have enough money to pay for drugs that you've earned out of your own pocket, then more power to you. When you're so desperately poor that you need government subsidies, and you're paying for drugs, then there's an issue of wasting taxpayer money.
Would a correct analogy be like giving a homeless man money and him spending it on alcohol instead? Maybe you give him money thinking he'll do the sensible thing and buy food with it, but instead he gets beer. Wouldn't you want to KNOW that he wasn't going to spend it on beer before-hand (like a drug-test for welfare) so that you could decide to give him money or not?
we actually do do those things. Food stamps can't be used to buy cigarettes or alcohol or fast food. A lot of states have been passing laws banning the use of benefits cards from accessing ATMs in strip clubs and bars and gambling establishments.
here's the tricky part - money is fungible. If you give someone that wants alcohol money to buy food, and they were going to buy food anyways, you've just essentially bought alcohol for them anyways
Its not necessarily a 1:1 conversion but it is a conversion that does exist (see: people that sell their food stamps)
On January 17 2014 11:05 tombigbimbom wrote: "It ignores that current understanding of drug addiction which physically alters one's brain to the point that people continue to use even though they want to quit but cannot do so."
That's a bunch of bs I don't believe in anymore based on my experience and I don't think anyone should.
I was on morphine for close to a year, initially due to chronic pain associated with my illness and towards the end I was taking pretty large doses (up to ~400mg a day, while the minimum lethal dose is set at 200mg, 60mg for people sensitive to it). While I was on it, I quickly started to enjoy its effects and I started to like it and request prescriptions for higher and higher doses. However, one day I decided that it was enough and I didn't want to be negatively affecting my daily mental and physical performance anymore. If I wanted to, I could've continued taking it, getting prescriptions for it for the rest of my life and having it reimbursed due to the nature of my illness. But I decided that I wanted to quit. The withdrawal was painful for a few days and I was on my own. Frankly, it was as much of a nightmare as I can imagine something to be. But after it was out of my system, I was done with it. Sure, psychological effects persist and sometimes I feel like taking a large dose and nod off, especially when I'm having a few bad days. But I DECIDE not to.
After all of this, I have absolutely no sympathy for drug addicts. They are drug addicts because they CHOOSE to be, not because something tells them that they can't quit. If I can relatively easily quit a drug as addictive as morphine with my addictive personality, anyone can.
On a side note, I love the concept of this law and I feel it should exist everywhere in a refined form, if it can be good ROI. People who aren't on drugs have nothing to worry about here - one test and they get their money. If you want to get money other members of the society are funding so you can live an easier life yourself, you should at least not feel so freakin entitled. And drug addicts can go somewhere else to fund their addiction instead of the tax payers.
No offense but your one subjective, anecdotal experience with regard to drugs does absolutely nothing to overturn the voluminous body of research written and maintained by the medical community that states, among a great many other things, that chemical dependency is a disease, that it alters brain chemistry, etc. To claim otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd. Your whole post is ugly, wrongheaded and profoundly misinformed.
On topic: invasive, costly, and unneeded? Sounds like an ideal law. This is to placate rightwing nutjobs that think a majority of welfare users are pregnant crack addicts despite zero evidence of this other than the patently absurd fear-mongering spouted by their favorite talking head. A sad and embarrassing turn of events, in my opinion.
Not only is it the most colossal waste of time, the governor of Florida owned a huge share of the company that was contracted to do drug testing. Nothing shady about that.
So now they will be drug addicts AND extra poor. And taxpayers still have to pay for the tests I guess so in the end they don't even save money, it just goes in a different pocket.
In theory a good idea, but in practice it's super counterintuitive for those getting benefits and the taxpayers. It seems a perfect idea to appease those with morality-focused minds and some companies that need some extra love from the government. A perfect law for freedom-loving America.
On January 17 2014 11:05 tombigbimbom wrote: "It ignores that current understanding of drug addiction which physically alters one's brain to the point that people continue to use even though they want to quit but cannot do so."
That's a bunch of bs I don't believe in anymore based on my experience and I don't think anyone should.
I was on morphine for close to a year, initially due to chronic pain associated with my illness and towards the end I was taking pretty large doses (up to ~400mg a day, while the minimum lethal dose is set at 200mg, 60mg for people sensitive to it). While I was on it, I quickly started to enjoy its effects and I started to like it and request prescriptions for higher and higher doses. However, one day I decided that it was enough and I didn't want to be negatively affecting my daily mental and physical performance anymore. If I wanted to, I could've continued taking it, getting prescriptions for it for the rest of my life and having it reimbursed due to the nature of my illness. But I decided that I wanted to quit. The withdrawal was painful for a few days and I was on my own. Frankly, it was as much of a nightmare as I can imagine something to be. But after it was out of my system, I was done with it. Sure, psychological effects persist and sometimes I feel like taking a large dose and nod off, especially when I'm having a few bad days. But I DECIDE not to.
After all of this, I have absolutely no sympathy for drug addicts. They are drug addicts because they CHOOSE to be, not because something tells them that they can't quit. If I can relatively easily quit a drug as addictive as morphine with my addictive personality, anyone can.
On a side note, I love the concept of this law and I feel it should exist everywhere in a refined form, if it can be good ROI. People who aren't on drugs have nothing to worry about here - one test and they get their money. If you want to get money other members of the society are funding so you can live an easier life yourself, you should at least not feel so freakin entitled. And drug addicts can go somewhere else to fund their addiction instead of the tax payers.
One individual experience does not disprove the current understanding of addiction. Different people will react in different ways to the same drug. That's great you were able to up and quit like that but for many people, it's not possible nor is it as easy. As IPA already mentioned, this is widely supported and agreed upon by the majority of medical professionals who study drug addiction.
As an aside, for those who are seriously addicted and using harder drugs (eg., narcotics, crack & powder cocaine, etc), they're more likely to NOT be eligible for government subsidies (housing, TANF, etc) because of prior felons. Additionally, they're also more likely to be disenfranchised because of this, forever losing the right to vote.
There is a word we throw around a lot in the addiction recovery community. That word is "enabling." Enabling friends and family who think they are helping their friend or loved one is one of the greatest threats to an addicts recovery. If you give an addict money, if you give an addict shelter, you are not helping them to get better, you are merely helping them perpetuate their deadly lifestyle. In recovery programs such as the Betty Ford Center, enabling behavior is itself treated as an addiction of sorts which must be rooted out and eliminated.
An addict will only get better if they truly want to get better, and for most, that requires hitting rock bottom. Sure, it sounds cruel, which is why people are so eager to enable, but that is short sighted thinking. Just as a doctor might recognize the necessity for a painful operation, we must recognize what is necessary to overcome the powerful disease that is addiction.
This is not the opinion of a lone individual. This is the consensus among the medical and addiction recovery community. It is the standing philosophy of programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and various rehabilitation centers around the world. Florida is taking a step in the right direction.
On January 18 2014 02:37 The Savage wrote: There is a word we throw around a lot in the addiction recovery community. That word is "enabling." Enabling friends and family who think they are helping their friend or loved one is one of the greatest threats to an addicts recovery. If you give an addict money, if you give an addict shelter, you are not helping them to get better, you are merely helping them perpetuate their deadly lifestyle. In recovery programs such as the Betty Ford Center, enabling behavior is itself treated as an addiction of sorts which must be rooted out and eliminated.
An addict will only get better if they truly want to get better, and for most, that requires hitting rock bottom. Sure, it sounds cruel, which is why people are so eager to enable, but that is short sighted thinking. Just as a doctor might recognize the necessity for a painful operation, we must recognize what is necessary to overcome the powerful disease that is addiction.
This is not the opinion of a lone individual. This is the consensus among the medical and addiction recovery community. It is the standing philosophy of programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and various rehabilitation centers around the world. Florida is taking a step in the right direction.
So basically we pick a person who has made a choice we disagree with and we fuck them over because giving them the same stuff we give everyone else would be enabling them, but isn't enabling when we give it to anyone else, and by not enabling them the fucking them over is really medicine and it's just a coincidence that it happens to involve fucking over people we don't like when really we're like doctors or some shit. I think we should deny you any benefits or tax breaks you may receive in the hope that your life turns to shit, you hit rock bottom and learn not to be an ass. Trust me, I'm a doctor (well, like a doctor (I recognise necessities like doctors)).
government =/= community or family. Even if family members shouldn't enable drug use, for the government to do stuff like this is hurting the rights of citizens.
On January 18 2014 02:37 The Savage wrote: There is a word we throw around a lot in the addiction recovery community. That word is "enabling." Enabling friends and family who think they are helping their friend or loved one is one of the greatest threats to an addicts recovery. If you give an addict money, if you give an addict shelter, you are not helping them to get better, you are merely helping them perpetuate their deadly lifestyle. In recovery programs such as the Betty Ford Center, enabling behavior is itself treated as an addiction of sorts which must be rooted out and eliminated.
An addict will only get better if they truly want to get better, and for most, that requires hitting rock bottom. Sure, it sounds cruel, which is why people are so eager to enable, but that is short sighted thinking. Just as a doctor might recognize the necessity for a painful operation, we must recognize what is necessary to overcome the powerful disease that is addiction.
This is not the opinion of a lone individual. This is the consensus among the medical and addiction recovery community. It is the standing philosophy of programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and various rehabilitation centers around the world. Florida is taking a step in the right direction.
It comes from what approach you think. Humanistic or Behaviorism, Neuroscience is pretty heavy in here too.
Humanistic believes that humans will only get better when they want to, it comes down to the addict to change. Behaviorism is where you treat the addiction by associating feeling good with something else, hard to do if the drug feels really good. Neuroscience: Give them a drug that causes them to change. It can work, it's frowned upon cause trading one drug for another is frowned upon now.
I would prefer the behaviorism approach. Where they don't hit rock bottom but instead are given the opportunity to explore different routes to happiness. Btw, enabling can occur with or without drugs. I don't see how enabling has anything to do with drug tests. The money can easily be given to people who gamble, how do we test blood/urine for that? Just figure out what amount of money is ok to throw away on people who are going to throw it away. Don't punish people who aren't going to throw money away cause a few are.
The government throws away money on prototypes for army supplies, surely they can throw less money away on poor people.
On January 18 2014 02:37 The Savage wrote: There is a word we throw around a lot in the addiction recovery community. That word is "enabling." Enabling friends and family who think they are helping their friend or loved one is one of the greatest threats to an addicts recovery. If you give an addict money, if you give an addict shelter, you are not helping them to get better, you are merely helping them perpetuate their deadly lifestyle. In recovery programs such as the Betty Ford Center, enabling behavior is itself treated as an addiction of sorts which must be rooted out and eliminated.
An addict will only get better if they truly want to get better, and for most, that requires hitting rock bottom. Sure, it sounds cruel, which is why people are so eager to enable, but that is short sighted thinking. Just as a doctor might recognize the necessity for a painful operation, we must recognize what is necessary to overcome the powerful disease that is addiction.
This is not the opinion of a lone individual. This is the consensus among the medical and addiction recovery community. It is the standing philosophy of programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and various rehabilitation centers around the world. Florida is taking a step in the right direction.
Just because it's the philosophy of AA and other rehabilitation centers doesn't necessarily mean it's correct, nor the right thing to do (I won't focus on that as a few others have before). However, I do want to mention the empirical evidence, in my opinion, does not support AA's efficacy for promoting absenteeism. One of the better meta-analyses conducted by Kownacki and Shadish (1999) examined 21 controlled studies. They found the results really don't support it, especially when coerced. In some cases, AA is worse than even trying to get help.
It leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth that you'd take this route, especially if you are involved in the recovery community.
AA is a horrible program. The success rate of it is less than 10% almost everywhere its involved, ontop of that, it forces you to turn to religion in order to solve your problem. It's so incredibly sad that AA is forced on so many people that need actual help. Not nonsense.
Not only is it the most colossal waste of time, the governor of Florida owned a huge share of the company that was contracted to do drug testing. Nothing shady about that.
That's incorrect as per your first source:
Scott’s company didn’t bid on the contract to conduct the state tests.
Solantic is more of a walk-in clinic for basic medical treatment and not the best choice for contracting something like this.
I disapprove of welfare in pretty much all it's forms. As long as there are less recipients that are drawing from that entitlement, I'm a happier person.
I'm actually surprised there is so much arguing about this when the idea is simple. Drugs are illegal, why should government give people money to spend on things that they themselves outlaw? We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was "government denies welfare money to men who buy prostitutes." Now would we? Well, probably would as people would go "why shouldn't the government give them money just because they indulge in illegal activities? that's cruel!" But you get the point.
Now of course the other issue is as has been stated that doing this ends up costing a lot more money in drug tests then it saves so in practicality it's not a good idea, but as far as in theory and if it could be done cost effectively, I don't see how people can argue for the government giving money for spending on illegal expensive activities.
On January 18 2014 06:45 hunts wrote: I'm actually surprised there is so much arguing about this when the idea is simple. Drugs are illegal, why should government give people money to spend on things that they themselves outlaw? We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was "government denies welfare money to men who buy prostitutes." Now would we? Well, probably would as people would go "why shouldn't the government give them money just because they indulge in illegal activities? that's cruel!" But you get the point.
Now of course the other issue is as has been stated that doing this ends up costing a lot more money in drug tests then it saves so in practicality it's not a good idea, but as far as in theory and if it could be done cost effectively, I don't see how people can argue for the government giving money for spending on illegal expensive activities.
Well implementation is key when it comes to anything regarding welfare. Everybody, liberals and conservatives alike, want welfare abuse to stop, but any solution has to be a good one, and not one that either wastes money or gets innocent people screwed over in the process.
For drug abuse, there's the obvious problem in that drug testing everybody on welfare actually costs more than the money saved. When it comes to restricting what a person can or can't buy with welfare, there has to be good enough oversight that nobody ends up going hungry because we restricted something a person needs to survive.
Makes perfect sense. If you want welfare the money should only be used to keep you in a barely living fugue state. We should also not give welfare to anyone that spends more that fifteens dollars per month on the lottery, buys more than one videogames a year, plays LoL, or collects magic cards. After all, why would I want my tax money going to someone's trade binder?
Sorry to bother you guys.. but how is the money distributed to the person? Bank account, cash in hand or something else? Because the basic healthcare insurance we get here for example is we can pay the bills from hospitals and doctors and most common recipes with it but we don´t get any money directly. And we don´t have any related drug test then because the persons can´t abuse the healthcare system because they don´t get any money from it directly.
On January 18 2014 07:18 Nachtwind wrote: Sorry to bother you guys.. but how is the money distributed to the person? Bank account, cash in hand or something else? Because the basic healthcare insurance we get here for example is we can pay the bills from hospitals and doctors and most common recipes with it but we don´t get any money directly. And we don´t have any related drug test then because the persons can´t abuse the healthcare system because they don´t get any money from it directly.
On January 18 2014 06:45 hunts wrote: I'm actually surprised there is so much arguing about this when the idea is simple. Drugs are illegal, why should government give people money to spend on things that they themselves outlaw? We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was "government denies welfare money to men who buy prostitutes." Now would we? Well, probably would as people would go "why shouldn't the government give them money just because they indulge in illegal activities? that's cruel!" But you get the point.
Now of course the other issue is as has been stated that doing this ends up costing a lot more money in drug tests then it saves so in practicality it's not a good idea, but as far as in theory and if it could be done cost effectively, I don't see how people can argue for the government giving money for spending on illegal expensive activities.
Not to mention most of the positive tests are/would be for marijuana because of THC's long half-life in urine instead of the prescription medications which are the main cause of death and overdose among drug users. (alcohol, prescriptions, and tobacco kill and cost the American people exponentially more than the marijuana use, testing like this is most likely to uncover.
Marijuana is only illegal and not considered a miracle medicine because of ass-backwards people who think it should be criminalized without knowing anything about it. Or temperance lingerers who want to ban any thing any one else indulges in that they don't.
There are countless reasons why this sounds good but is a categorically idiotic idea many of which have already been noted.
The idea that you would either spend more to prevent a small group (smaller % than the general population) of poor people from getting government aid because they are "drug" users/addicts, or just have people (many of whom have jobs they work) choose between things like heat or food because welfare has been abolished and there are only so many jobs that pay a living wage and many more people than jobs.
So inevitably some people will be stuck in jobs that don't pay a living wage with literally no way for many of them to get a better wage because there simply isn't a job open that pays better regardless of their skill sets.
Well unless we mandated a living wage aka minimum wage that actually allowed people to spend their money as is advised by financial professionals, allocating proportional amounts to expenses ie x% for rent x% for food etc... if they wanted to blow their money on drugs and not have money for food that's on them. It's really simple one could start just by not having Jobs that pay you so little that you still need government assistance to cover the basic necessities. Or you can just keep inflating top earners salaries and increasing middle class taxes to make sure the people that top executives make their money off of don't die or revolt.
If one family (who intentionally payed their employees little enough to qualify for government assistance) didn't have more wealth than 40% of the American people maybe there would be some more to go around without having to place the burden on the middle class...?
On January 18 2014 07:18 Nachtwind wrote: Sorry to bother you guys.. but how is the money distributed to the person? Bank account, cash in hand or something else? Because the basic healthcare insurance we get here for example is we can pay the bills from hospitals and doctors and most common recipes with it but we don´t get any money directly. And we don´t have any related drug test then because the persons can´t abuse the healthcare system because they don´t get any money from it directly.
You need cash to buy food.
Food stamps have cards now. You don't need "cash" anymore. You just are given a card you swipe to pay for food items. WIC, (pregnant) women, infants, and children, gives you a specific check that lets you get a certain food items only, milk cheese, fruits, vegetables, very few cereals... etc. Food stamps and the snap program in the US give you access to all food items except alcohol and supplements.
On January 18 2014 06:45 hunts wrote: I'm actually surprised there is so much arguing about this when the idea is simple. Drugs are illegal, why should government give people money to spend on things that they themselves outlaw? We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was "government denies welfare money to men who buy prostitutes." Now would we? Well, probably would as people would go "why shouldn't the government give them money just because they indulge in illegal activities? that's cruel!" But you get the point.
Now of course the other issue is as has been stated that doing this ends up costing a lot more money in drug tests then it saves so in practicality it's not a good idea, but as far as in theory and if it could be done cost effectively, I don't see how people can argue for the government giving money for spending on illegal expensive activities.
I won't pretend to be an expert on this issue but I think Florida should have a part B to their plan. They plan to drug test for welfare. That's fine and all but make it that those who fail the drug test have to go through a drug program to try and help them come clean. Getting addicted to a drug and trying to quit is very difficult because your brain chemistry gets altered and the neurotransmitter affected changes with the drug used and such. Personally, I don't think it would be right to deny them money if they need it but at the same time trying to promote a healthy lifestyle is a must. I think this issue is not as black and white as people see it but in the grey.
On January 18 2014 06:39 Wolfstan wrote: I disapprove of welfare in pretty much all it's forms. As long as there are less recipients that are drawing from that entitlement, I'm a happier person.
Wellfare in all it's forms? Wellfare is when money is given to someone without expecting in return. Does this mean you don't believe in people giving money to their children? Extended family can't give money to extended family?
Where do you draw the line? Can communities help people out? Is education not supposed to be given freely? Do we simply euthanize anyone who gets under the poverty line?
It is a very libertarian/social darwinism approach to simply cut off supply to people who are unable to support themselves (those who are disabled) or simply lazy. I myself don't feel our defense budget should be in the several hundreds of billions of dollars. Most of the social prgrams in the budget, when compared defense, don't even make a dent in the debt when cut to nothing.
I hate that the defense budget being that big as well. I have been identified by websites as having libertarian views, yes. People should be free to give money to charities or churches or whatever if they have a bleeding heart for these people. You shouldn't be forced to enable people who are to stupid, disabled or lazy. Just like it's not illegal to cut off a family member when they use your "help" to do terrible things to themselves.
On January 18 2014 08:09 Wolfstan wrote: I hate that the defense budget being that big as well. I have been identified by websites as having libertarian views, yes. People should be free to give money to charities or churches or whatever if they have a bleeding heart for these people. You shouldn't be forced to enable people who are to stupid, disabled or lazy. Just like it's not illegal to cut off a family member when they use your "help" to do terrible things to themselves.
what if you were in an unfortunate accident and ended up disabled? would you rather die than accept welfare if that was the only option? thoughts?
On January 18 2014 08:09 Wolfstan wrote: I hate that the defense budget being that big as well. I have been identified by websites as having libertarian views, yes. People should be free to give money to charities or churches or whatever if they have a bleeding heart for these people. You shouldn't be forced to enable people who are to stupid, disabled or lazy. Just like it's not illegal to cut off a family member when they use your "help" to do terrible things to themselves.
Libertarian is a nice idea. It works well when we're talking about small populations. Very Old West style and attractive from a long distant view. Dying from an infected toe because you broke the skin walking around the house and stepped on a nail isn't fun though (because lack of funding to build a hospital nearby). I'm not going to say what's best because I don't know. Maybe the best way for our society to develop is for all the weak and disabled to die off and stupid people should stop being healed up so they can procreate later down the line. I would like to think that a world where people are all given a chance to succeed and kept around is the better choice though.
On January 18 2014 08:22 Wolfstan wrote: I am a very proud person, I would not subject my own child or others children to take care of me when I cannot take care of myself.
so you're indirectly telling me you would rather die then, did I get that right? I don't think there's anything wrong with being a proud person, I think most people are but I don't see a reason to say someone disabled through no fault of their own should have to die for that. Anyways, hopefully the point I was trying to make made sense lol.
I'm more happy to give better tax breaks to charitable donations, than using money from the general revenues. Government should be small enough to only represent us, defend us, police us and build the infrastructure to keep civilization going. I'm fine with peoples views who think welfare is part of infrastructure or polititians legislating welfare in bipartisan talks to keep government running, just a matter of scale.
On January 18 2014 08:22 Wolfstan wrote: I am a very proud person, I would not subject my own child or others children to take care of me when I cannot take care of myself.
so you're indirectly telling me you would rather die then, did I get that right? I don't think there's anything wrong with being a proud person, I think most people are but I don't see a reason to say someone disabled through no fault of their own should have to die for that. Anyways, hopefully the point I was trying to make made sense lol.
Yes you made a point I can understand thank you, I just accept my empathy is limited by time and space.
On January 18 2014 04:07 PanN wrote: AA is a horrible program. The success rate of it is less than 10% almost everywhere its involved, ontop of that, it forces you to turn to religion in order to solve your problem. It's so incredibly sad that AA is forced on so many people that need actual help. Not nonsense.
I don't know what the basis of that "10%" figure is, or what relation it bears to recidivism statistics for people who don't participate in AA, but I think it's a fantastic program. It's saved 3 people in my family from alcoholism. All of them struggled and relapsed at some point, as almost everyone does, but they've all been dry for a very long time now. Also, the fact that some degree of spiritualism is part of AA does not reduce it's effectiveness, IMO (personally, I am an atheist). I know several atheists, including my own father, who were either past or present AA participants, and all agree that it is at least helpful for getting started after they got over the physical addiction. Some continue to go, and others either cut back or stopped going for various reasons including the religious aspect, but structure, community and empathy are all invaluable assets that AA provides to someone who is just starting the lifelong struggle with addiction.
On January 18 2014 08:22 Wolfstan wrote: I am a very proud person, I would not subject my own child or others children to take care of me when I cannot take care of myself.
so you're indirectly telling me you would rather die then, did I get that right? I don't think there's anything wrong with being a proud person, I think most people are but I don't see a reason to say someone disabled through no fault of their own should have to die for that. Anyways, hopefully the point I was trying to make made sense lol.
Yes you made a point I can understand thank you, I just accept my empathy is limited by time and space.
oh ok fair enough I just wasn't sure if my phrasing was right or not lol
On January 18 2014 04:07 PanN wrote: AA is a horrible program. The success rate of it is less than 10% almost everywhere its involved, ontop of that, it forces you to turn to religion in order to solve your problem. It's so incredibly sad that AA is forced on so many people that need actual help. Not nonsense.
I don't know what the basis of that "10%" figure is, or what relation it bears to recidivism statistics for people who don't participate in AA, but I think it's a fantastic program. It's saved 3 people in my family from alcoholism. All of them struggled and relapsed at some point, as almost everyone does, but they've all been dry for a very long time now. Also, the fact that some degree of spiritualism is part of AA does not reduce it's effectiveness, IMO (personally, I am an atheist). I know several atheists, including my own father, who were either past or present AA participants, and all agree that it is at least helpful for getting started after they got over the physical addiction. Some continue to go, and others either cut back or stopped going for various reasons including the religious aspect, but structure, community and empathy are all invaluable assets that AA provides to someone who is just starting the lifelong struggle with addiction.
You can't really generalize of how great a program AA is based off a few individual stories. That's absolutely great that it worked for your family members. AA programs are highly variable in nature despite the attempt at standardizing it. It could be that particular one was doing really well but on the whole, there's not too much support for the efficacy of AA.
Not only is it the most colossal waste of time, the governor of Florida owned a huge share of the company that was contracted to do drug testing. Nothing shady about that.
Scott’s company didn’t bid on the contract to conduct the state tests.
Solantic is more of a walk-in clinic for basic medical treatment and not the best choice for contracting something like this.
In 2011, they started to provide drug screening and BAC testing. However, I imagine part of the reason they didn't apply was because of the negative publicity this brought them (despite it being illegal elsewhere, this type of maneuver remains legal in Florida). I still feel its unethical because his family can still profit off Solantic through other policy changes in Florida. He already has a history of fraud with the companies he's worked for (Columbia/HCA hospital for example)
On January 18 2014 06:45 hunts wrote: I'm actually surprised there is so much arguing about this when the idea is simple. Drugs are illegal, why should government give people money to spend on things that they themselves outlaw? We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was "government denies welfare money to men who buy prostitutes." Now would we? Well, probably would as people would go "why shouldn't the government give them money just because they indulge in illegal activities? that's cruel!" But you get the point.
Now of course the other issue is as has been stated that doing this ends up costing a lot more money in drug tests then it saves so in practicality it's not a good idea, but as far as in theory and if it could be done cost effectively, I don't see how people can argue for the government giving money for spending on illegal expensive activities.
Because denying them these services, they're more likely to cost the government a greater amount in the long-run (health and criminal justice costs).
It's similar to the success of 'wet apartments' for the homeless. They're not required to stop drinking but many of them are able to get their lives back on track. For a quick article on that, check out this NPR piece. There are plenty of journal articles that have studied this as well.
From a 2010 Washington Post article, in reference to the Cochrane Library meta-analysis of alcoholism treatment studies,
Although AA's emphasis on anonymity makes it difficult for outside researchers to determine its success rates, some have tried. What they have found doesn't inspire much confidence in AA's approach. A recent review by the Cochrane Library, a health-care research group, of studies on alcohol treatment conducted between 1966 and 2005 states its results plainly: "No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF [12-step facilitation] approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems."
AA itself has released success rates at times, but these numbers are based only on voluntary self-reports by alcoholics who maintain their ties to AA -- not exactly a representative sample.
Even taken at face value, the numbers are not impressive. In a 1990 summary of five membership surveys from 1977 through 1989, AA reported that 81 percent of alcoholics who began attending meetings stopped within one month. At any one time, only 5 percent of those still attending had been doing so for a year.
Many health conditions resolve themselves through what's known as spontaneous remission -- that is, they improve on their own. In the case of the common cold, for example, nearly everyone gets over the virus without medical intervention. In a 2005 article in the journal Addiction, Deborah A. Dawson and her colleagues calculated a natural recovery rate for alcoholism of 24.4 percent -- that is, over the course of a year, 24.4 percent of the alcoholics studied simply wised up, got sick and tired of being sick and tired, and quit. Without treatment and without meetings.
When AA's retention numbers are compared with alcoholism's rate of spontaneous remission, they look even worse.
Many proponents of AA cite Project MATCH (Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity), a study completed in 1996 by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism that seemed to find that 12-step treatment works. The study randomly assigned alcoholics to one of three behaviorally based treatments with marked differences in philosophy and practice: a 12-step therapy based on the principles of Alcoholics Anonymous, cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational enhancement therapy.
After eight years and $27 million, the study concluded that the techniques were equally effective. More to the point, a 2005 article in the journal BMC Public Health that reanalyzed the data from Project MATCH reported that almost all of the effect of treatment was achieved after attending a single session. In other words, it was the initial decision to try to get better that determined a person's chances of succeeding; what followed made little difference.
Although AA doubtless helps some people, it is not magic. I have seen, in my work with alcoholics, how its philosophy can be harmful to patients who chronically relapse: AA holds that, once a person starts to slip, he or she is powerless to stop. The stronger an alcoholic's belief in this perspective, the longer and more damaging relapses can be. An evening of drinking turns into a month-long bender.
Equally troubling, AA maintains that when an alcoholic fails, it is his fault, not the program's. As outlined in the organization's namesake bible, "Alcoholics Anonymous" (also known as "The Big Book"): "Those who do not recover are those who cannot or will not give themselves completely to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates . . . they seem to have been born that way." This message can be devastating.
Addicted to Rehab Sorry Panzerking, but anecdotes can only take you so far.
On January 18 2014 06:45 hunts wrote: I'm actually surprised there is so much arguing about this when the idea is simple. Drugs are illegal, why should government give people money to spend on things that they themselves outlaw? We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was "government denies welfare money to men who buy prostitutes." Now would we? Well, probably would as people would go "why shouldn't the government give them money just because they indulge in illegal activities? that's cruel!" But you get the point.
Now of course the other issue is as has been stated that doing this ends up costing a lot more money in drug tests then it saves so in practicality it's not a good idea, but as far as in theory and if it could be done cost effectively, I don't see how people can argue for the government giving money for spending on illegal expensive activities.
This is not about punishing those who break the law, it is about preemptively screening people. It's more akin to saying since men are more likely to use prostitutes, then men applying for government assistance need to be monitored by cops for awhile before they qualify. I'm pretty sure that if someone gets arrested for doing drugs their welfare will be cut.
My issue with the drug testing is I think it might actually cost more money then it saves. I'm going to go ahead and list all the reasons why this is a bad Idea knowing full well that some people will immediately dismiss it because it doesn't fit in with their world view.: (Also I am going to give credit to John Cheese who wrote an article about this here: http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-understand-about-poor-people/ Below will be TLDNR version.) Also the bolded will address the original post directly.
1. 1/3 people living below the poverty line actually work. Of the households below the poverty line 84% of them have someone in them that are working. 2/3 poor children are from households with people working in them. That should tell you right there how utterly insulting it is to instigate this sort of policy as a knee jerk reactions to what is perceived as wide scale welfare abuse. I am sure there are some people on welfare that are abusing the system just as I am sure there are people who abuse the fuck out of disability benefits but that is the minority.
2. 91% of government benefits go to the disabled, elderly or working households.
3. 47% of the impoverished between the ages of 18 and 26 have been to college. Not all graduated sure, but it is hard to fathom someone who had the motivation and presence of mind to go to college who didn't have the desire to do something/ anything with their lives. The idea that someone can put out the effort, yet not gain ground is inconceivable.
4. "If you have enough money to be able to buy drugs, then you don't need the public assistance. I don't want tax dollars spent on drugs." - Jerry Sonnenberg In Arizona, out of 87,000 people they subjected to the test, exactly one person tested positive.
Florida had just as embarrassing results: 21 people tested positive out of 51,000.
of course, that didn't hurt their feelings much since the program not only didn't save the state any money, but it actually put them almost $46,000 in the hole, even when you factor in the money they saved by denying applicants.
So basically kicking the very few abusers they found in the system out of the system cost them more money then leaving it how it was? This is nothing but political grand standing making an issue out of something that isn't really that big of an issue.
5. To receive assistance with housing you have to have an address for the cheque to be mailed to. If you do not have a place to live the state does not pay out its shelter portion of the benefit. Further if your homeless it is very hard to prove residency in the state which you are applying for benefits in. If you can't prove residency well you don't get to apply for benefits. When people think of welfare abusers they think of heroine addicts in back alleys. That assessment doesn't mesh with reality. Alot of the homeless people you see begging are begging because they cannot get benefits, and cannot get employment because it is impossible to hold a job without a mailing address and almost impossible to maintain hygiene at a level that would be appropriate to be presentable to be employed. Once your homeless or in poverty it is almost impossible to get yourself out of that situation. And sadly stories of people ascending out of poverty and achieving the american dream is the exception not the norm.
On January 20 2014 08:24 B_Type13X2 wrote: My issue with the drug testing is I think it might actually cost more money then it saves. I'm going to go ahead and list all the reasons why this is a bad Idea knowing full well that some people will immediately dismiss it because it doesn't fit in with their world view.: (Also I am going to give credit to John Cheese who wrote an article about this here: http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-understand-about-poor-people/ Below will be TLDNR version.) Also the bolded will address the original post directly.
1. 1/3 people living below the poverty line actually work. Of the households below the poverty line 84% of them have someone in them that are working. 2/3 poor children are from households with people working in them. That should tell you right there how utterly insulting it is to instigate this sort of policy as a knee jerk reactions to what is perceived as wide scale welfare abuse. I am sure there are some people on welfare that are abusing the system just as I am sure there are people who abuse the fuck out of disability benefits but that is the minority.
2. 91% of government benefits go to the disabled, elderly or working households.
3. 47% of the impoverished between the ages of 18 and 26 have been to college. Not all graduated sure, but it is hard to fathom someone who had the motivation and presence of mind to go to college who didn't have the desire to do something/ anything with their lives. The idea that someone can put out the effort, yet not gain ground is inconceivable.
4. "If you have enough money to be able to buy drugs, then you don't need the public assistance. I don't want tax dollars spent on drugs." - Jerry Sonnenberg In Arizona, out of 87,000 people they subjected to the test, exactly one person tested positive.
Florida had just as embarrassing results: 21 people tested positive out of 51,000.
of course, that didn't hurt their feelings much since the program not only didn't save the state any money, but it actually put them almost $46,000 in the hole, even when you factor in the money they saved by denying applicants.
So basically kicking the very few abusers they found in the system out of the system cost them more money then leaving it how it was? This is nothing but political grand standing making an issue out of something that isn't really that big of an issue.
5. To receive assistance with housing you have to have an address for the cheque to be mailed to. If you do not have a place to live the state does not pay out its shelter portion of the benefit. Further if your homeless it is very hard to prove residency in the state which you are applying for benefits in. If you can't prove residency well you don't get to apply for benefits. When people think of welfare abusers they think of heroine addicts in back alleys. That assessment doesn't mesh with reality. Alot of the homeless people you see begging are begging because they cannot get benefits, and cannot get employment because it is impossible to hold a job without a mailing address and almost impossible to maintain hygiene at a level that would be appropriate to be presentable to be employed. Once your homeless or in poverty it is almost impossible to get yourself out of that situation. And sadly stories of people ascending out of poverty and achieving the american dream is the exception not the norm.
Maybe whoever implemented the policy thought that there would be a much higher number of drug abusers.
Now that we know the facts though, you'd have to be outright stupid to implement the policy, ethical or not.
I think the democrats were silly to bring in the ethical debate because it just polarizes people. Much more people will agree if you just say it costs more to implement than what we will get back, thus completely defeating the purpose.
The law makes a lot of logical sense but it also shows that politicians will try and implement a law with zero research, which is absolutely insane.
There's nothing wrong with the idea, but the fact that the law was trying to be brought on a PRESUMPTION and not FACT is the real problem here.
On January 20 2014 08:24 B_Type13X2 wrote: My issue with the drug testing is I think it might actually cost more money then it saves. I'm going to go ahead and list all the reasons why this is a bad Idea knowing full well that some people will immediately dismiss it because it doesn't fit in with their world view.: (Also I am going to give credit to John Cheese who wrote an article about this here: http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-understand-about-poor-people/ Below will be TLDNR version.) Also the bolded will address the original post directly.
1. 1/3 people living below the poverty line actually work. Of the households below the poverty line 84% of them have someone in them that are working. 2/3 poor children are from households with people working in them. That should tell you right there how utterly insulting it is to instigate this sort of policy as a knee jerk reactions to what is perceived as wide scale welfare abuse. I am sure there are some people on welfare that are abusing the system just as I am sure there are people who abuse the fuck out of disability benefits but that is the minority.
2. 91% of government benefits go to the disabled, elderly or working households.
3. 47% of the impoverished between the ages of 18 and 26 have been to college. Not all graduated sure, but it is hard to fathom someone who had the motivation and presence of mind to go to college who didn't have the desire to do something/ anything with their lives. The idea that someone can put out the effort, yet not gain ground is inconceivable.
4. "If you have enough money to be able to buy drugs, then you don't need the public assistance. I don't want tax dollars spent on drugs." - Jerry Sonnenberg In Arizona, out of 87,000 people they subjected to the test, exactly one person tested positive.
Florida had just as embarrassing results: 21 people tested positive out of 51,000.
of course, that didn't hurt their feelings much since the program not only didn't save the state any money, but it actually put them almost $46,000 in the hole, even when you factor in the money they saved by denying applicants.
So basically kicking the very few abusers they found in the system out of the system cost them more money then leaving it how it was? This is nothing but political grand standing making an issue out of something that isn't really that big of an issue.
5. To receive assistance with housing you have to have an address for the cheque to be mailed to. If you do not have a place to live the state does not pay out its shelter portion of the benefit. Further if your homeless it is very hard to prove residency in the state which you are applying for benefits in. If you can't prove residency well you don't get to apply for benefits. When people think of welfare abusers they think of heroine addicts in back alleys. That assessment doesn't mesh with reality. Alot of the homeless people you see begging are begging because they cannot get benefits, and cannot get employment because it is impossible to hold a job without a mailing address and almost impossible to maintain hygiene at a level that would be appropriate to be presentable to be employed. Once your homeless or in poverty it is almost impossible to get yourself out of that situation. And sadly stories of people ascending out of poverty and achieving the american dream is the exception not the norm.
Maybe the mayor or whoever implemented the policy thought that there would be a much higher number of drug abusers.
Now that we know the facts though, you'd have to be outright stupid to implement the policy, ethical or not.
I think the democrats were silly to bring in the ethical debate because it just polarizes people. Much more people will agree if you just say it costs more to implement than what we will get back, thus completely defeating the purpose.
I agree; I think it was stupid to partisianize the issue and make it an ethical debate when they could have most likely gotten Republicans to vote against it with a financial argument.
The democrats have to bring the ethical debate into the question as per their platform. This is just one of those cases where the ethical and financial arguments are perfectly aligned. It is 100% cheaper to not drug test people on welfare and your still doing the right thing. What brought this about in t he first place is politicians wanting to appear hardline about financial responsibility banking in on outrage over people receiving their "Obama money" despite the fact that under Bush they'd have been entitled to almost the exact same things. It's smoke and mirrors and is quite honestly the worst kind of politics, the people that went forth and implemented this should be publicly shamed.
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - A bill that would require screening for possible drug use welfare recipients is moving forward in the Indiana Legislature.
A House committee voted 8-4 on Wednesday to advance the bill. The bill would require Indiana residents receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families be screened through a questionnaire and drug tested if they show a likelihood of addiction. Benefits would continue if they test positive as long as they enter treatment.
An amendment removed a mandate for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to show photo identification.
Committee chairwoman Rebecca Kubacki of Syracuse says photo identification is impractical because of the cost and inevitable battle with the federal government.
EPT
. It's a shame that these topics always devolve to this.
