Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Yahoo: Florida Drug Testing for Welfare Applicants


shuler74

Recommended Posts

this came up a lot in an earlier thread:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?347838-****-Gov.-Rick-Scott.&highlight=drug+test

I still stand by what I said in that thread:

I want to know what happens when kids aren't fed because the parents tested positive for weed so they couldn't get food stamps. Are they going to take the kids away? Are they going to take the kids away from anyone ever caught doing drugs? How many foster homes do you have in Florida? I know here in MD, we couldn't take them. We're swamped now. Hell, my wife and I said we would consider another in August, and they are trying to move it to an earlier date...like first available day...

I hope his advisors understand the down stream effects of their plan or the pro life party will inadvertently cause a lot of misery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is this (from the OP link),

ACLU objections aside, welfare is public tax money and subject to rules and regulations about its distribution. Illegal drug users that use taxpayer money to support their habit in any form are abusing the system and depriving their children of needed food, clothing and other items that the assistance was intended to provide.

Does the current system mandate that the $300 maximum per month go towards these items for their kids?

If not, then what's really the issue? That some people are abusing this and we are going to setup a system that punishes everyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, we know.

It's the "if the government gives you money, then whatever you do with it after that is still the government's money." argument.

At least, that's if you do something with the money that our Party doesn't like, like buy drugs or watch adult movies or join a union (unless it's a union that donates to the GOP. Then it's different.) If the government gives you money and you use it to send your kid to a religious school then well, that's different, that's not the government's money that's going to that religious school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More like terrible idea and continued erosion of privacy and freedom are what's next.

No one is invading anyone's privacy. Unless the laws have undergone a drastic change, drug use is illegal.

If those people want that area of their lives private, then they can't have public money

It's firmly their choice.

I don't see how putting some restrictions on welfare like 'You can't be committing a crime and collect welfare" is invading privacy.

It's perfectly reasonable, and could possibly help people.

If there's one thing I know about drug users, they don't really want rto do anything about their problem. (This attitude bleeds off into pretty much everything they do.) Only drastic measures ever have an effect, and sometimes not even that depending on the drugs used.

So give them the stark choice. Some will fall, others won't.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why stop at illegal drugs?

Let's test for all money pits like alcohol & tobacco usage.

How about testing for STD's? Can't have them welfare queens and kings sexing it up with just anyone, right?

Hell, let's even make sure their BMI's don't fall into the obese or morbidly obese range.

:ols:

Seriously though - my major concern (in the short term) with this Florida program is the shifting of the cost of the drug tests onto the recipient (who doesn't have money in the first place to pay for it - that's why they are on welfare, right?).

Yes, I know, they can get refunded if they pass the test.

But how long does that take in a normal bureacracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is invading anyone's privacy. Unless the laws have undergone a drastic change, drug use is illegal.

Speeding is illegal, too.

If the government demands that you prove that you haven't sped in the last week, you're OK with that, right? After all, demanding that someone prove that they haven't committed a crime isn't an invasion of privacy, right?

If people want that area of their lives to be private, they can just not drive, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speeding is illegal, too.

If the government demands that you prove that you haven't sped in the last week, you're OK with that, right? After all, demanding that someone prove that they haven't committed a crime isn't an invasion of privacy, right?

If people want that area of their lives to be private, they can just not drive, right?

I don't have to spend a ton of public money to speed, Larry.

But drugs take money, a lot of it. There's no other way to get them.

As usual, we take reasonable exceptions and extrapolate them into the most ridiculous possibility that exists, and stand on it as if it makes sense.

Why can't gays get married? because we can't agree on what should marry who, right? You've heard the idiotic arguments that if we allow two men to marry, then it won't stop and people will be marrying coffee tables and circus ponies.

The speeding argument sounds just as moronic to me.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupid law. Welfare is not about morality, it is about need. Drug addicts need to eat. So do their kids. If they are stupid enough to fail a drug test, so what? Stupid people need to eat too.

---------- Post added June-8th-2011 at 10:36 AM ----------

I don't have to spend a ton of money to speed, Larry.

But drugs take money, there's no other way to get them.

~Bang

If (in theory) I did a lot of drugs in my youth, I never paid for any of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is can we afford their fall and the fall of everyone they drag down with them?

There are a lot of functional drug addicts. My question boils down to does the punishment fit the crime? If mom or dad spokes pot, does the punishment of whole family does not get money for food fit the crime? Does the loss of one's kids fit the crime? I understand your "no $ for you" (said in best soup natzi voice) because you violated rules/laws way of thinking.

At some point, the goal of giving the welfare money in the first place has to met or it's failure needs to be addressed. I worry we are entering into the land of 2 wrongs hoping to find justice. Nevermind those who did the first wrong are still a part of us, our society at large. For what it's worth, I don't think we are talking about the extremely rare case either. Poverty and drugs go together all to often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupid law. Welfare is not about morality, it is about need. Drug addicts need to eat. So do their kids. If they are stupid enough to fail a drug test, so what? Stupid people need to eat too.

---------- Post added June-8th-2011 at 10:36 AM ----------

If (in theory) I did a lot of drugs in my youth, I never paid for any of them.

So all we have to do, is be stupid and do drugs, and we can be paid for it. Sounds like a plan. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speeding argument sounds just as moronic to me.

Whereas the argument that drugs are illegal, therefore demanding that people prove that they haven't committed a crime in the last week isn't an invasion of privacy isn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all we have to do, is be stupid and do drugs, and we can be paid for it. Sounds like a plan. lol

You forgot being desperately poor, and that you get "paid" a pittance.

They aren't getting paid for being stupid. They aren't getting paid for doing drugs. They are getting paid because they need to eat. Even stupid people who make mistakes and do drugs and can't hold down a job and who yell too loud on the sidewalk and who don't take showers and screw up in every possible way need to eat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allannis, do you think welfare lets them live at the Ritz? Do you ever talk to these people?

Last fall, I was lucky enough to have lunch with a homeless man. Subway was offering the footlong for $5 of the sub I wanted anyways, so I invited him in and offered him the rest of the sub and my soda which my belly does not need. I spent my 45min just asking him about his life, where he spent nghts, his family, etc. Over and over, our conversation would lapse into his rythmic "It's all going to be OK because the world is good because the word is good, and the word is good because God is good." My crappy day was put in a completely different light. As terrible as it felt when I headed out, I still had a nice home with a beautiful wife and 2 kids to which I would go home. I randomly ran into him outside another restaurant the next day. He remembered me, but he couldn't answer basic questions like "What would make today a great day for you? What would be perfect? Do you know how to find a mens' shelter?"

Since that day I have carried the number of mens shelter hotline in my cell phone because I failed him the second day. I was busy, but not so busy I shouldn't have walked back across the street and take a few hours of leave to go find him shelter.

These people you mock thinking their life is easy because they can get welfare probably live a life 100x harder than all but a handful of people posting on this board. Some go off to war. Others fight wars within their heads without ever even taking a step outside. The lucky ones like the man I met can be happy with very little. I don't lose sleep over anything of mine helping to give him the little he needs. I lose sleep over my unwillingness to help him when I could/should have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deacon,

I was the lucky one. How many are lucky enough to have their outlook on a day thought to be crappy turned on its head for the extra $1.50 I spent? Maybe my story isn't told in a touching enough way needed to ellicit some empathy. More's the pity. I'm not a good Christian, but I always liked the "that which is done unto the least of me" line of thought because I keep finding myself redefining the "least of me" realizing there is no "least."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deacon,

I was the lucky one. How many are lucky enough to have their outlook on a day thought to be crappy turned on its head for the extra $1.50 I spent? Maybe my story isn't told in a touching enough way needed to ellicit some empathy. More's the pity. I'm not a good Christian, but I always liked the "that which is done unto the least of me" line of thought because I keep finding myself redefining the "least of me" realizing there is no "least."

I'm just playin... I too have had my share of talks with the homeless. Many of which I have found to have a decent head on their shoulders.If nothing else, it is always humbling. But often, I learn a lot more and get a lot more than they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whereas the argument that drugs are illegal, therefore demanding that people prove that they haven't committed a crime in the last week isn't an invasion of privacy isn't?

No, I see it as conditions for reeceiving th money.

Times are tough. Need to cut back on waste, right? Well, if people need welfare, taking a half a day to go and get tested once a month shouldn't be too much of an inconvenience. And if people are wasting public money on drugs then we can cut them off and get the money to people who really need it and will do with it what it is intended for.

Drugs are a very expensive habit, we see no return in the form of taxes because the drug dealers don't claim it. It doesn't cycle thru the system. The money is a total loss. We may as well cut out the middle man and just start cutting checks to heroin dealers.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I see it as conditions for reeceiving th money.

Times are tough. Need to cut back on waste, right? Well, if people need welfare, taking a half a day to go and get tested once a month shouldn't be too much of an inconvenience. And if people are wasting public money on drugs then we can cut them off and get the money to people who really need it and will do with it what it is intended for.

Drugs are a very expensive habit, we see no return in the form of taxes because the drug dealers don't claim it. It doesn't cycle thru the system. The money is a total loss. We may as well cut out the middle man and just start cutting checks to heroin dealers.

~Bang

This begs the question, is illegal drug use a rampant problem amongst welfare recipients in Florida? Or, is it an outlier that just gives the system a black eye?

As an aside Bang - are you okay with the proposal to put the entire test costs on the recipient? What price threshold (for the test) makes this too much of a demand of the poor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...