Florida Will Drug Test Welfare Recipients

[JudynTX]

Florida could be setting a precedent on what seems to be a controversial issue, drug testing welfare recipients.

Governor Rick Scott just signed a law requiring Floridians to submit urine, blood, or hair samples for drug tests before they receive any aid from their state. If they test positive, the recipient will not receive cash aid for six months. Their children can still secure assistance from the state through a designated person as long as the person passes the drug test. In the result of a second positive test, there will be a three-year ban on state assistance, according to the Miami Herald.



Rest of the story here: Link (http://http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/06/06/florida-will-drug-test-welfare-recipients/)

[Drachen]

seems fair

[MannyIsGod]

seems fair

Funny, because I think it seems expensive and necessary.

[clambake]

lol how much will that cost?

[Fpoonsie]

seems fair

Yep. I have no problem with this.

[MannyIsGod]

You guys have no problem spending money on a program that will not save the state a single dime or serve any real productive purpose? Do you think there is a huge drug problem among those who are on welfare? This is an easy way for state politicians to act as if they're "tough" while not accomplishing a damn thing other than spending more money when states simply don't have any to begin with.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Sometimes necessary things are expensive.

Cymbals take a pretty big bite out of my wallet. But they're oh so necessary.

[MannyIsGod]

Why is it necessary?

[JoeChalupa]

Maybe it'll cut down on food costs due to decreasing the munchies?

[JoeChalupa]

Should they drug test those receiving unemployment benefits too? And disability or government pension payments?

[ALVAREZ6]

Florida will also begin implementing mandatory bedtimes for welfare recipients. The bedtime is still being debated, but sources say it will likely be somewhere between 10:00-11:30 PM.

[MannyIsGod]

Should they drug test those receiving unemployment benefits too? And disability or government pension payments?

Or trash collection? Or anyone applying for a drives license? Shouldn't all government services require that money only be spent on those who aren't on drugs/

[Drachen]

Florida will also begin implementing mandatory bedtimes for welfare recipients. The bedtime is still being debated, but sources say it will likely be somewhere between 10:00-11:30 PM.

This allows them to be alert and ready to search for/prepare for a better job. This is a win-win really. This allows the state to help get people off of welfare and allows the welfare recipients to be able to start doing their drugs again.

edit: forgot to add this "/s"

[MannyIsGod]

This allows them to be alert and ready to search for/prepare for a better job. This is a win-win really. This allows the state to help get people off of welfare and allows the welfare recipients to be able to start doing their drugs again.

Is there a large problem with drug use among welfare recipients?

[MannyIsGod]

Also, when the people are denied assistance what happens? Do they no longer cost the state any money? The road to productivity becomes harder, does it not? They remain a drain on state resources a longer time, do they not?

[Drachen]

Is there a large problem with drug use among welfare recipients?

I only have personal experience, not research, but when I was making a ton of stupid decisions in my early 20s, an extremely large percentage of the people I hung out with abused such programs.

[ALVAREZ6]

:lol

[Drachen]

Also, when the people are denied assistance what happens? Do they no longer cost the state any money? The road to productivity becomes harder, does it not? They remain a drain on state resources a longer time, do they not?

I am ok with adding an amendment to this that states something to the effect of "ok, you don't get your welfare, but if you would like you get some drug treatment"

[JoeChalupa]

Or trash collection? Or anyone applying for a drives license? Shouldn't all government services require that money only be spent on those who aren't on drugs/

:tu Postal workers, police office, fire fighters, teachers, all government ee's, pee before get drivers license, etc..

[MannyIsGod]

I only have personal experience, not research, but when I was making a ton of stupid decisions in my early 20s, an extremely large percentage of the people I hung out with abused such programs.

Florida seems to have researched this in the past. Their conclusion? Drug use among welfare recipients no difference than among everyone else.

[Drachen]

Is that a lot, a little, a medium amount???

[MannyIsGod]

I am ok with adding an amendment to this that states something to the effect of "ok, you don't get your welfare, but if you would like you get some drug treatment"

Oh, thereby making it even more expensive. I believe the law has that provision, actually. How effective is most drug treatment? Would this be a good use of government funds? Considering those selling the bill have marked it as "fiscally conservative" how would that save the state money?

[MannyIsGod]

Is that a lot, a little, a medium amount???

If I recall, about 6% but I don't have it in front of me anymore. I'll try to look it up again.

At what point does it become worth it to implement a program like this in order to save the state money?

[MannyIsGod]

:tu Postal workers, police office, fire fighters, teachers, all government ee's, pee before get drivers license, etc..

Man, if you want your house fire put out you're going to have to pee into a cup. We don't need to spend government money putting out fires for druggies. :tu

[Drachen]

Oh, thereby making it even more expensive. I believe the law has that provision, actually. How effective is most drug treatment? Would this be a good use of government funds? Considering those selling the bill have marked it as "fiscally conservative" how would that save the state money?

Well obviously it would be a short term investment with expectations of long-term rewards.

I am not trying to sound like a dick, but (if it is true that this provision is in the bill), it seems like it is a pretty good example of bipartisanship thinking creating a balanced carrot/stick approach to a problem. What would you do?

[coyotes_geek]

Funny, because I think it seems expensive and necessary.

I'm with you. More nanny-state republicanism at it's finest.

I'm sure the Texas legislature will pass a similar law next session.

[Drachen]

Man, if you want your house fire put out you're going to have to pee into a cup. We don't need to spend government money putting out fires for druggies. :tu

If you don't put out the fire, the whole neighborhood will get high, then you will have to worry about a entire block of people going on welfare.

[MannyIsGod]

Well obviously it would be a short term investment with expectations of long-term rewards.

I am not trying to sound like a dick, but (if it is true that this provision is in the bill), it seems like it is a pretty good example of bipartisanship thinking creating a balanced carrot/stick approach to a problem. What would you do?

What would I do? Nothing because there is no problem. Thats kinda my point, Drachen. So far you've provided nothing to back up a claim there is a problem here worth solving by the state. I haven't seen any data that this will save the state any money or have any long term positive results.

Isn't all of that kind of necessary to show you have a problem before you actually try to solve it?

[MannyIsGod]

I'm with you. More nanny-state republicanism at it's finest.

I'm sure the Texas legislature will pass a similar law next session.

The voters eat it up. You can always target the usual suspects of the poor, immigrants, and criminals and act "tough" as a politician while actually accomplishing nothing.

[ALVAREZ6]

:lol

[Drachen]

Here (http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm) is some info that I found. I am just wondering about the definition of the term illicit drugs.


Although almost 20 percent of welfare recipients report recent use of some illicit drug during the year, only a small minority satisfies internationally accepted diagnostic criteria for drug or alcohol dependence.
Illicit drug use and dependence are more common among women receiving welfare than among women who do not. Drug use is a risk factor for welfare receipt, even after controlling for race, educational attainment, region and other factors.
Alcohol dependence also appears more prevalent among women receiving welfare than among those who do not, though this effect is smaller and more ambiguous than is the case for drugs.
The prevalence of illicit drug use among welfare recipients nationally declined between 1990 and 1998, although recipients are more likely than non-recipients to use drugs.
Psychiatric disorders, especially major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, are more prevalent than illicit drug dependence among welfare recipients. States should screen, assess, and refer to treatment those welfare applicants and recipients who have a broad range of mental health and substance abuse problems that hinder the transition from welfare to work.


20% seems pretty steep to me.

[MannyIsGod]

link?

[ALVAREZ6]

Here (http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm) is some info that I found. I am just wondering about the definition of the term illicit drugs.


Illicit = illegal = Controlled Substances used recreationally

[ALVAREZ6]

link?

It was hyperlinked in the "Here" that began his post:

http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm

[Drachen]

Illicit = illegal = Controlled Substances used recreationally

thank you


It was hyperlinked in the "Here" that began his post:

http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm

thank you

[baseline bum]

Do they throw the ones that fail the test into the oven?

[Nathan Explosion]

I know a lot of people who receive government assistance, and a whole bunch of them are pot heads. I don't have a problem with this bill at all. You can say the percentage of drug users both on welfare and not are identical, but the difference between the two is one is government sponsored drug use and the other is not.

You see, among many foodstamp recipients, you can actually buy stamps at 2 for 1 price for cash. $50 gets you $100 worth of food. Those $50 can then go to the drug habit or alcohol to feed the addiction. So yes, the people are using government benefits to buy drugs. Tax dollars are being used to fund drug habits.

Or to put it another way, to some people, welfare is their job. And last time I checked, every job I've applied for required a drug test. So if these people want to get paid, then they should pee in a cup, just like the rest of the people applying for jobs. Unemployment benefits should also be added to the bill.

Florida, doing something right.....for once.

[thispego]

You guys have no problem spending money on a program that will not save the state a single dime or serve any real productive purpose? Do you think there is a huge drug problem among those who are on welfare? This is an easy way for state politicians to act as if they're "tough" while not accomplishing a damn thing other than spending more money when states simply don't have any to begin with.

Welfare recipients use their welfare money to buy drugs. WTF Manny?

[Trainwreck2100]

pointless if they are not going to do randoms while they are receiving it.

[MannyIsGod]

Welfare recipients use their welfare money to buy drugs. WTF Manny?

You would kn...... I mean, SUP PEGO?

[ALVAREZ6]

Tax dollars are being thrown away in enormous piles annually in attempt to win the War on Drugs. Then, even more tax dollars are being thrown away in enormous piles annually in order to support inmates in prison for using or selling relatively harmless drugs that will always be in demand while allowing the population to legally consume a significantly more harmful drug.
FIFY, tbh...

[ALVAREZ6]

pointless if they are not going to do randoms while they are receiving it.

:tu

Any drug test that is a one time initiative test is just a complete waste of money. Especially for the users that use drugs that are out of your urine very quickly, like most drugs. It just so happens that the least harmful drug to society is detectable for quite some time.

[thispego]

You would kn...... I mean, SUP PEGO?

:lmao

In any case where receiving free money is involved, there should be mandstory drug tests. You shouldnt get to do drugs unless you have a Job and youre paying for them yourself!

[CuckingFunt]

Thank goodness Florida has found a more efficient way of further degrading those people receiving aid from a program meant to help them, rather than putting any energy into trying to solve the many issues that encourage drug use within poor and marginalized communities.

[ALVAREZ6]

:lmao

In any case where receiving free money is involved, there should be mandstory drug tests. You shouldnt get to do drugs unless you have a Job and youre paying for them yourself!

Regardless of how responsible a person you are, under the eyes of the the government you shouldn't get to do drugsPERIOD unless it's that very harmful legal one.

[MannyIsGod]

Its not free money. Pretty sure that we all pay taxes in case we need the assistance at some point.

BTW I just had massive Deja Vu.

[ALVAREZ6]

Thank goodness Florida has found a more efficient way of further degrading those people receiving aid from a program meant to help them, rather than putting any energy into trying to solve the many issues that encourage drug use within poor and marginalized communities.
What are these issues tbh??? I can maybe see where you are going, depending if I'm correct, don't necessarily disagree. But TBH, solving "the drug problem" is no poor phenomenon, it just so happens that those areas they live in for obvious reasons are where the police are concentrated in.


I cannot make myself any more clear in this thread: trying to solve the natural human demand for drugs that dates thousands of years is a stupid goal for the US Government. That shit should just be thrown out or at least significantly reformed.

[Nathan Explosion]

FIFY, tbh...

I didn't say throw them in jail. But you're wasting tax dollars to fund drug habits. Take away the welfare checks and let them fend for themselves. Random test the people and let the users go empty handed.

Too many people abuse a system that was meant to be a temporary assistance. There are people who are using the system for the right reasons, and they're being mixed up with the career welfare recipients.

Check this shit out.

UYy1QI6ZOeY

ODB was rich as hell, and still getting food stamps. This is the shit that needs to stop. People use to government to often and it's wasting billions of tax dollars. Start weeding out the stragglers from the truly needy and go from there.

If you want to use drugs, go ahead, as long as you don't hurt someone. Just get a job and earn your own cash to fund that habit. Don't rob, murder or steal for drug money (and selling stamps for drug money is stealing).

[Drachen]

:tu

Any drug test that is a one time initiative test is just a complete waste of money. Especially for the users that use drugs that are out of your urine very quickly, like most drugs. It just so happens that the least harmful drug to society is detectable for quite some time.

oh, i didnt realize it was a one time deal. its a waste then

[Nathan Explosion]

I cannot make myself any more clear in this thread: trying to solve the natural human demand for drugs that dates thousands of years is a stupid goal for the US Government. That shit should just be thrown out or at least significantly reformed.

Yes I agree with that, but that's not necessarily the issue here. The drug tests won't stop people as a whole from using. What it can possibly due is take away the government assistance that is being used to fund the drug habit. That's my problem.

I'm not giving people money to buy drugs. I'll lend someone money to buy groceries or fix their car or pay a bill or what not. So why should my tax dollars be used to buy drugs? Buy drugs with your own money. My money is used to help people live their lives while they're struggling.

[ALVAREZ6]

I didn't say throw them in jail. But you're wasting tax dollars to fund drug habits. Take away the welfare checks and let them fend for themselves. Random test the people and let the users go empty handed.


I know, and I don't disagree with your point. My FIFY post along with others was part of a thread-hijacking attempt. Diverting the subject.

[thispego]

Its not free money. Pretty sure that we all pay taxes in case we need the assistance at some point.

BTW I just had massive Deja Vu.

Ok... Give me some welfare money too and i'll be pissed about having to take mandatory drug tests to receive it. I would undoubtedly use that welfare money to buy really good weed every month.

Realizing that your tax dollars go to support welfare recipients, wouldnt you want to know that they are using the money for food and necessities and not to grt high with so they can continue to not work, be lazy, collect free (to them) monies?

[baseline bum]

Florida should also fat-test the welfare recipients. Fatasses' grocery bills cost more, as cake is expensive and keeps them from getting off the fucking couch.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok... Give me some welfare money too and i'll be pissed about having to take mandatory drug tests to receive it. I would undoubtedly use that welfare money to buy really good weed every month.

Realizing that your tax dollars go to support welfare recipients, wouldnt you want to know that they are using the money for food and necessities and not to grt high with so they can continue to not work, be lazy, collect free (to them) monies?

TBH, I don't care about people who misspend welfare money very much. Its impossible to get people to spend that money wisely at some point and shit like this that doesn't look to solve anything is a worst waste of money.

[Thompson]

Just end welfare altogether. He who does not work shall not eat.

Didn't we have another thread about crops rotting in Florida because the immigrants were afraid of the immigration laws? Two birds with one stone.

[Drachen]

.

[Andrew Cunanan]

Just end welfare altogether. He who does not work shall not eat.

Didn't we have another thread about crops rotting in Florida because the immigrants were afraid of the immigration laws? Two birds with one stone.

That's a very eloquent, non-archaic point of view. We need more Americans like you, sir.

[Thompson]

That's a very eloquent, non-archaic point of view. We need more Americans like you, sir.

:lol Just give it a few more years; people will eventually realize we can't decadently pay people to sit on their butts when the nation's insolvent.

[thispego]

Just end welfare altogether. He who does not work shall not eat.

Didn't we have another thread about crops rotting in Florida because the immigrants were afraid of the immigration laws? Two birds with one stone.

:tu

[Cuckolded Sissy]

I could see riots breaking out over this, category 3 chimp outs minimum.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Great, this will mean more frequent-flyer ambulance calls so people can legally get their fix :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

Florida Will Drug Test Welfare Recipients
Good. Other states need to follow.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, if this article is correct, the law takes effect 7/1/12. Plenty of time for people to get their shit together. The tests will cost between $44,000 to $110,000 monthly. When the program was conceived in 2001, it was based on $89 per test. Test costs are down, and are now $10 to $25 each. They will test 4,400 people, I assume randomly, and the first time they apply.

Florida Will Drug Test Welfare Recipients (http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/06/06/florida-will-drug-test-welfare-recipients/)

Just found this:

HB 353 Drug Screening of Potential and Existing Beneficiaries of Temporary Cash Assistance (http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=h0353.HSAS.DOCX&DocumentType=Analysis&BillNumber=0353&Session=2011)

Have some reading to do, and will search for HB 353 too.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, the effective date is this year, I assume the 2012 date is when it must be fully implemented.

Here is the text of HB 353:

CS/CS/CS/CS/HB 353, Engrossed 1 (http://static.lobbytools.com/bills/2011/PDF/0353ER.PDF)

[Big P]

You have to take a drug test to get a job....why shouldn't you have to take a drug test to live off the govts. tit? This should have been done a long time ago...why should the tax payers subsidize peoples drug habits? I would rather spend money on drug tests to get rid of the moochers, than have the moochers spend my tax dollars on drugs....what's wrong with getting the people who abuse the system out of it?

[Big P]

TBH, I don't care about people who misspend welfare money very much. Its impossible to get people to spend that money wisely at some point and shit like this that doesn't look to solve anything is a worst waste of money.

You want to misspend your money that's one thing...you worked for it, misspending tax payer dollars for drugs so you can sit home and watch Maury is bullshit. The reason they don't spend the money wisely is because it's not their money, its the tax payers.

[SA210]

Or trash collection? Or anyone applying for a drives license? Shouldn't all government services require that money only be spent on those who aren't on drugs/

[SA210]

What would I do? Nothing because there is no problem. Thats kinda my point, Drachen. So far you've provided nothing to back up a claim there is a problem here worth solving by the state. I haven't seen any data that this will save the state any money or have any long term positive results.

Isn't all of that kind of necessary to show you have a problem before you actually try to solve it?

It just goes to show that it's just a personal hatred and a prejudice against the minority or the poor.No proof, just a prejudice.

[Wild Cobra]

It just goes to show that it's just a personal hatred and a prejudice against the minority or the poor.No proof, just a prejudice.
No. It's prejudice against drug users. Not the poor.

Please get the facts strait.

[TheProfessor]

No. It's prejudice against drug users. Not the poor.

Please get the facts strait.
It's suspicionless testing, based on the presumption that many of those on welfare are abusing it to use drugs.

[Wild Cobra]

It's suspicionless testing, based on the presumption that many of those on welfare are abusing it to use drugs.
No it isn't. It's a requirement to get assistance. If you don't like it, too bad. The same law and testing standards employers can use is utilized. Is it also wrong that employers do this?

I'm going to make the wild ass guess that you have an entitlement mentality.

112.0455 Drug-Free Workplace Act.— (http://archive.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?m&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0112/Sections/0112.0455.html)

[mouse]

I would starve to death in Florida.

[mouse]

well I would not eat as well .......

[TheProfessor]

No it isn't. It's a requirement to get assistance. If you don't like it, too bad. The same law and testing standards employers can use is utilized. Is it also wrong that employers do this?

I'm going to make the wild ass guess that you have an entitlement mentality
:lol First of all, I'm all for sensible revisions to the current welfare scheme, but this is nothing but political posturing that accomplishes very little, other than further stigmatizing the poor and punishing those not in a position to help themselves, often the children. This is not an employment context, and these searches are suspicionless. The Michigan appellate courts handled this earlier in the decade and found such laws unconstitutional.

[DMC]

Should they drug test those receiving unemployment benefits too? And disability or government pension payments?Sure. Drug test everyone.

[DMC]

:lol First of all, I'm all for sensible revisions to the current welfare scheme, but this is nothing but political posturing that accomplishes very little, other than further stigmatizing the poor and punishing those not in a position to help themselves, often the children. This is not an employment context, and these searches are suspicionless. The Michigan appellate courts handled this earlier in the decade and found such laws unconstitutional.
"The poor" are not a race or a group of people. It's a status of those who were unfortunate then and lazy now. Plenty who were born into unfortunate circumstances have found ways to move forward. Those who make a career out of receiving charity are fucking worthless cocksuckers who need to be shot anyhow.

[Chris]

Simple solution is to charge the recipients for the drug test. That way no money is wasted,and all the taxpayers are happy.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol First of all, I'm all for sensible revisions to the current welfare scheme, but this is nothing but political posturing that accomplishes very little, other than further stigmatizing the poor and punishing those not in a position to help themselves, often the children. This is not an employment context, and these searches are suspicionless. The Michigan appellate courts handled this earlier in the decade and found such laws unconstitutional.
If you read the legislation, it does not affect the goodies allocated to the children. Just the adults.

[ChumpDumper]

Stupid, feel-good and ultimately useless legislation.

[allinphilly]

What else is new

[DarkReign]

Since the government will not end welfare, will not stop the War on Drugs/Terror/Crime, wtf does any of this matter?

Not much. Florida will see no gain or loss from this soon-to-be-struck-down law. Too many vested interests in government assistance.

[SpursStalker]

Good they need to do that EVERYwhere!!!

[Kori Ellis]

I didn't read all the responses, but...


Their children can still secure assistance from the state through a designated person as long as the person passes the drug test.

What does "designated person" mean? Do the parents have to find someone else to come in and pass a drug tests in order for the kids to get assistance? What if they don't have anyone? Will this designated person then be in charge of the child's benefits?

I'm not sure I care one way or another about drug testing the parents, but are the kids going to be left starving?

[PM5K]

They tried some other dumb shit as well with the whole no sugar snacks or soft drinks as well. Seriously what's up with politicians?

I guess this will go one of two ways: Either it goes like the Texas High School Athletic Drug Testing which was a huge bomb, fewer than 30 confirmed tests over 50,000 tests given overall, that's something like half of one percent. So way one is so few people fail the tests that there's no point. Way two is a lot of people fail it and a few of us in this thread were at least a little wrong, and a bunch of little kids starve to death in Florida.

Thanks Career Point!

[gospursgojas]

Pointless system.

You're smarter than that america. Think of the costs to benefits of this program, and its a HUGE waste of money. Passing "moral" shit like this even though it doesnt make any fiscal sense, is what got us in trouble and continues to do so.

[ALVAREZ6]

You're smarter than that america.
Uhh, not really. What makes you think this? A lot of laws in the US are outdated.

[thispego]

Pointless system.

You're smarter than that america. Think of the costs to benefits of this program, and its a HUGE waste of money. Passing "moral" shit like this even though it doesnt make any fiscal sense, is what got us in trouble and continues to do so.

States would be saving the money they are not giving to drug users to support their drug habits. How do y'all not understand this? drug tests do not cost a lot, $10-$20 a pop is what wild cobra said I think.

I really don't get how you shmucks think that people should receive FREE money completely unchecked. the least they could do is submit to a drug test for receiving their free money on a monthly basis. y'all are dumb if you think it's a waste of taxpayer dollars to drug test welfare/unemployment beneficiaries but not a waste for those beneficiaries to use tax payer dollars on their drug habits. Think about it numbnuts! try not to hurt yourselves! :rolleyes

[Big P]

Pointless system.

You're smarter than that america. Think of the costs to benefits of this program, and its a HUGE waste of money. Passing "moral" shit like this even though it doesnt make any fiscal sense, is what got us in trouble and continues to do so.

How is it a huge waste of money if the moochers are kicked out of the system? To me it seems like we would be saving a bunch of money and getting the people that really need the assistance help...if you are on welfare and you don't do drugs, then you have nothing to worry about...if you are on welfare and using drugs, then you need to be kicked out of the system so that money can go to a person or persons that really need the help...it's not right that we the tax payers are subsidizing their drug use..period.

[JoeChalupa]

I hope they test for drugs other illegal ones since there are so many who abuse prescription drugs. Or is that even possible? And we all know not everyone is a moocher.

[Big P]

I hope they test for drugs other illegal ones since there are so many who abuse prescription drugs. Or is that even possible? And we all know not everyone is a moocher.

I didn't say everyone on welfare was a moocher...I said the people on welfare who are using tax payer dollars to pay for their drugs are moochers..those are the ones that need to be out of the system..what's wrong with that?

[DMC]

I didn't read all the responses, but...



What does "designated person" mean? Do the parents have to find someone else to come in and pass a drug tests in order for the kids to get assistance? What if they don't have anyone? Will this designated person then be in charge of the child's benefits?

I'm not sure I care one way or another about drug testing the parents, but are the kids going to be left starving?

If a legal guardian of a child cannot pass a drug test, how fit are they for parenting anyhow? It obviously wouldn't be a surprise drug test. The best thing that could happen would be that the state takes the child until the parent can clean it up.

[Wild Cobra]

What does "designated person" mean? Do the parents have to find someone else to come in and pass a drug tests in order for the kids to get assistance? What if they don't have anyone? Will this designated person then be in charge of the child's benefits?

I'm not sure I care one way or another about drug testing the parents, but are the kids going to be left starving?
The kids benefits will either be turned over to a qualified relative, or be taken care of by a state appointee to buy the things the kids need, rather than put that money in the hands of the parents.

I hear of parents selling their "food stamps" at times. They must have a serious drug or financial problem when they are willing to take $100 for $300 worth. I wonder how they are feeding their kids if they have some?

[IronMexican]

A day late and shet, but this is awesome. Awesome.

[BlackSwordsMan]

Good.

[Wild Cobra]

Pointless system.

You're smarter than that america. Think of the costs to benefits of this program, and its a HUGE waste of money. Passing "moral" shit like this even though it doesnt make any fiscal sense, is what got us in trouble and continues to do so.
As far as I care, if someone would rather be on a tax payer system, then they can abide by said pointless rules. I like the idea. It will make some people actually look for work that wouldn't otherwise. I will make some people clean up their act rather than be cut off. those who are cut of... Sorry, I misplaced my sympathy on this one.

Yes. I think it will make a difference. Florida will most likely save money by making these people want to be a burden of more friendly states like California.

[TheProfessor]

If a legal guardian of a child cannot pass a drug test, how fit are they for parenting anyhow? It obviously wouldn't be a surprise drug test. The best thing that could happen would be that the state takes the child until the parent can clean it up.
So you think the state should take any child whose parent or legal guardian cannot pass a drug test?

[ALVAREZ6]

So you think the state should take any child whose parent or legal guardian cannot pass a drug test?

lmao they'd have to hire A LOT of childcare employees and babysitters :lol

[symple19]

States would be saving the money they are not giving to drug users to support their drug habits.

Did you not understand what Manny was getting at earlier? What are the long term effects of this? Beyond the immediate savings the state would get, you would have more crime, more people in prisons, more health care costs, meaning you negate any little bit of savings on the front end and it would end up costing more.

I hate welfare too and think it should be reformed in some way, but this sets a dangerous precedent in addition to being stupid

Try not to hurt yourself thinking about this :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

I hope they test for drugs other illegal ones since there are so many who abuse prescription drugs. Or is that even possible? And we all know not everyone is a moocher.
Every time I have been drug tested, I have been asked questions pertaining to persriptions and othe5r factors that may influence a test.

From 112.0455:


(5) DEFINITIONS.—Except where the context otherwise requires, as used in this act:
(a) “Drug” means alcohol, including distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, and intoxicating liquors; amphetamines; cannabinoids; cocaine; phencyclidine (PCP); hallucinogens; methaqualone; opiates; barbiturates; benzodiazepines; synthetic narcotics; designer drugs; or a metabolite of any of the substances listed herein.
Now the legislation says only urine samples will be used, but 112.0455 doesn't list testing levels for it. It probably refers to them in another document. It does give appropriate hair samples, which I would assume are tested in urine also:

(13) RULES.—
(a) The Agency for Health Care Administration may adopt additional rules to support this law and part II of chapter 408, using criteria established by the United States Department of Health and Human Services as general guidelines for modeling drug-free workplace laboratories, concerning, but not limited to:
1. Standards for drug-testing laboratory licensing and denial, suspension, and revocation of a license.
2. Urine, hair, blood, and other body specimens and minimum specimen amounts which are appropriate for drug testing, not inconsistent with other provisions established by law.

<snip>

7. A list of the most common medications by brand name or common name, as applicable, as well as by chemical name, which may alter or affect a drug test.
(b) The following standards and procedures are established related to hair testing:
1. Hair cutoff levels for initial drug-screening tests.—The following initial cutoff levels must be used when screening hair specimens to determine whether they are negative for these drugs or their metabolites:
a. Marijuana: 10 pg/10 mg of hair;
b. Cocaine: 5 ng/10 mg of hair; and
c. Opiate/synthetic narcotics and metabolites: 5 ng/10 mg of hair. For the purpose of this section, opiate and metabolites include the following:
(I) Codeine;
(II) Heroin, monoacetylmorphine (heroin metabolites);
(III) Morphine;
d. Phencyclidine: 3 ng/10 mg of hair; and
e. Amphetamines: 5 ng/10 mg of hair. For the purpose of this section, amphetamines include the following:
(I) Amphetamines;
(II) Methamphetamine;
2. Hair cutoff levels for drug confirmation testing.—
a. All specimens identified as positive on the initial test must be confirmed using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS), mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (MS/MS) at the following cutoff levels for these drugs on their metabolites. All confirmations must be by quantitative analysis.
(I) Marijuana metabolites: 1 pg/10 mg of hair (Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-0-carboxylic acid).
(II) Cocaine: must be at or above 5 ng/10 mg of hair. Cocaine metabolites if present will be recorded at the following minimum levels:
(A) Benzoylecgonine at 1 ng/10 mg of hair; and
(B) Cocaethlyene at 1 ng/10 mg of hair.
(III) Opiate/synthetic narcotics and metabolites: 5 ng/10 mg of hair; opiate and metabolites include the following:
(A) Codeine;
(B) 6-Monoacetylmorphine (heroin metabolite); and
(C) Morphine.
(IV) Phencyclidine: 3 ng/10 mg of hair.
(V) Amphetamines: 5 ng/10 mg of hair. For the purpose of this section, amphetamines include the following:
(A) Amphetamines; and
(B) Methamphetamines.

Before that is this:

(13) RULES.—
(a) The Agency for Health Care Administration may adopt additional rules to support this law and part II of chapter 408, using criteria established by the United States Department of Health and Human Services as general guidelines for modeling drug-free workplace laboratories, concerning, but not limited to:
1. Standards for drug-testing laboratory licensing and denial, suspension, and revocation of a license.
2. Urine, hair, blood, and other body specimens and minimum specimen amounts which are appropriate for drug testing, not inconsistent with other provisions established by law.

<snip>

7. A list of the most common medications by brand name or common name, as applicable, as well as by chemical name, which may alter or affect a drug test.
(b) The following standards and procedures are established related to hair testing:

[thispego]

Did you not understand what Manny was getting at earlier? What are the long term effects of this? Beyond the immediate savings the state would get, you would have more crime, more people in prisons, more health care costs, meaning you negate any little bit of savings on the front end and it would end up costing more.

I hate welfare too and think it should be reformed in some way, but this sets a dangerous precedent in addition to being stupid

Try not to hurt yourself thinking about this :rolleyes
exactly how could you attribute higher crime and health care costs to lazy drug addicts being kicked off welfare now?

[BlackSwordsMan]

buy a gun

[DMC]

So you think the state should take any child whose parent or legal guardian cannot pass a drug test?

If I had my way, absolutely. What kind of a parent can afford drugs but not rent, food, clothes? That kind of parent is the worst thing for the kid. It guarantees that the kid will grow up and also be a dependent of the welfare system.

The negative is that the drug abuser will just not apply, so the kids will go without. Child protective services has to get involved in those cases.

Like I said, give them time to clean it up. Would you want your kids raised by drug addicts?

[DMC]

Did you not understand what Manny was getting at earlier? What are the long term effects of this? Beyond the immediate savings the state would get, you would have more crime, more people in prisons, more health care costs, meaning you negate any little bit of savings on the front end and it would end up costing more.

I hate welfare too and think it should be reformed in some way, but this sets a dangerous precedent in addition to being stupid

Try not to hurt yourself thinking about this :rolleyes

In the short term, that is correct. In the long term you would have fewer of all of these.

This nation cannot be held prisoner by lazy ass entitled people. They do not deserve any charity. If it's given to them, so be it, but we cannot keep funding the crime farms of America because we fear crime, or we feel guilty for not raising another person's children. Without funding they will not be nearly as productive. A woman will not see having a child as a viable alternative to getting a job, and see having many kids as a promotion. The lazy ass dead beat dad will not feel more justified in bolting on his family by knowing they will be better taken care of by the government (taxpayers).

Enough is enough. Generations of fucking lazy ass people need to meet natural selection.

[Wild Cobra]

If I had my way, absolutely. What kind of a parent can afford drugs but not rent, food, clothes? That kind of parent is the worst thing for the kid. It guarantees that the kid will grow up and also be a dependent of the welfare system.

No kidding. Kids who see their parents work hard, end up with good work ethics. Kids who see their parents take from others, will most likely do the same.

What right does anyone have to take the tax dollars and buy non essentials like alcohol or drugs? If they can afford this, then tax payers is being too generous to them.


The negative is that the drug abuser will just not apply, so the kids will go without. Child protective services has to get involved in those cases.

This is a possibility, but eventually most will be turned in. cannot watch over 100%. that would be wrong in other ways.


Like I said, give them time to clean it up. Would you want your kids raised by drug addicts?

The new legislation even mentions treatment programs.

I like the legislation as not wasting resources on those who will not help themselves.

[Wild Cobra]

A woman will not see having a child as a viable alternative to getting a job, and see having many kids as a promotion.
Don't forget those who get pregnat so they can be supported by the state instead of living under mommy and daddy's rules.

The lazy ass dead beat dad will not feel more justified in bolting on his family by knowing they will be better taken care of by the government (taxpayers).
There will still be some who are totally irresponsible.

Who else besides me is for mandatory tube snipping of irresponsible breeders? Both men and women?

[symple19]

exactly how could you attribute higher crime and health care costs to lazy drug addicts being kicked off welfare now?

Do people who use drugs on welfare spend all of that money on drugs? They spend it on food and basic necessities as well that allow them to at least have some form of living standards.

Take that away, and now you have drug addled people with NO money and an addiction that they can no longer sustain outside of crime. Do you think they're gonna say, "well, they pulled my welfare, better get a job so I can sustain my habit". No, they're going to rob and steal and do whatever else they can do, thus an increase in crime, an increase in jail/prison populations and on and on

A lowering of already rock bottom living standards by pulling welfare will inevitably lead to hungry people, which in turn leads to more health problems. More hospital visits in which we, the taxpayer, will foot an enormous bill because you can't turn them away. Welfare is also tied to public housing, right? Pull it and now you have more homeless people, who will also suffer more health problems because they live on the streets. Eating bad food, exposure to elements, etc. All these people will end up at the hospital for one reason or another, adding to our bill

Finally, it sets the precedent that anything tied to fed/state money is fair game for them to invade your personal liberties by demanding a drug test. Some posters before gave some good examples of that, like telling you what to eat or tying drug tests to unemployment, etc. I guess, for me, it's just another way for government to control your life, something I hate.

Now, if you want to argue that we enabled them to become what they are, I'll completely agree with you. We did. And the system is fucked. But more government meddling, to me, equates to more expensive in the long run, every time

[symple19]

In the short term, that is correct. In the long term you would have fewer of all of these.



please, explain

[DMC]

please, explain

In the long run the mothers who now have 15 kids because they can will not have that option. In the future there will not be 15 kids from a drug addicted welfare mother to wreak havoc on the nation and become wards of the state penal institutions. That doesn't mean any welfare parent will lose out, just those who are addicted to drugs. Sounds like a fair deal to me. It sucks to cut skin cells out, but cancer has to go.

[DMC]

Do people who use drugs on welfare spend all of that money on drugs? They spend it on food and basic necessities as well that allow them to at least have some form of living standards.

It's not even about them spending it all on drugs. It's about them having that addiction and needing the money from taxpayers instead of getting a job or taking care of their kids. Drugs or kids, not both.


Take that away, and now you have drug addled people with NO money and an addiction that they can no longer sustain outside of crime. Do you think they're gonna say, "well, they pulled my welfare, better get a job so I can sustain my habit". No, they're going to rob and steal and do whatever else they can do, thus an increase in crime, an increase in jail/prison populations and on and on
Your solution: Give them money so they won't steal it from you.

Negative.

My solution: Fuck them. If they want to commit crimes, we can start a drug rehab right now with either a bullet or a cell. Either will make you quit cold turkey.


A lowering of already rock bottom living standards by pulling welfare will inevitably lead to hungry people, which in turn leads to more health problems. More hospital visits in which we, the taxpayer, will foot an enormous bill because you can't turn them away. Welfare is also tied to public housing, right? Pull it and now you have more homeless people, who will also suffer more health problems because they live on the streets. Eating bad food, exposure to elements, etc. All these people will end up at the hospital for one reason or another, adding to our bill
Have you ever lived on welfare? Have you ever lived in the society you are talking about? It's a giant con and like all cons there are victims who fall by the wayside, but to combat that shit you have to take a hard stance.

Our bill will reduce over time when these people cease to exist as they are now. Some will become productive out of necessity and some will die.


Finally, it sets the precedent that anything tied to fed/state money is fair game for them to invade your personal liberties by demanding a drug test. Some posters before gave some good examples of that, like telling you what to eat or tying drug tests to unemployment, etc. I guess, for me, it's just another way for government to control your life, something I hate.
So? My employer can demand a drug test. Anyone working for the government can be drug tested. Don't want to be tested, don't apply.

Watch out for that slippery slope. There doesn't need to be all out Orwellian rule for welfare related drug testing to be in effect.


Now, if you want to argue that we enabled them to become what they are, I'll completely agree with you. We did. And the system is fucked. But more government meddling, to me, equates to more expensive in the long run, every timeI didn't enable shit. Charity isn't an enabler. My money was taken from me when I earned it, I didn't say "hey, let's support some lazy ass drug addict bitch so she can spit out a few shaking premies".

Don't pawn that off on me.

[DMC]

Don't forget those who get pregnat so they can be supported by the state instead of living under mommy and daddy's rules.

There aren't that many on welfare who just didn't want the rules mom and dad laid out at home. The large majority of these people came from poverty, never saw a way out and were raised with the honest belief that they were born to just exist, no purpose other than whatever show comes on that day. There's no inquisitive nature, no desire for learning, no reaching out. Just fuck the kid down the street, get a baby and the community of unwed, welfare parents will take over raising it.

If the kid has mom and dad who actually have rules, and the kid made a decision to leave, the kid is head and shoulders above the lot we are mostly talking about in terms of future outlook.


There will still be some who are totally irresponsible.

Who else besides me is for mandatory tube snipping of irresponsible breeders? Both men and women?
No. The sanctity of the human body must be preserved. This is why I am pro-choice. No forced medical procedures unless it's an agreement for services rendered.

[symple19]

-sigh-

Dude, you may be trying to troll, but some of your responses are hilarious. A bullet or a cell. Who pays for the cell?

As for all the let em die stuff, c'mon. This will never be an option, and you know it

And the we stuff in the end is the proverbial 'we'. Whether you like it or not your tax dollars have been enabling those fucks

The having kids response is a decent point, until you realize that they'll keep fucking and procreating regardless. Those babies will then end up in taxpayer funded hospitals with us footing the bill

Come back to reality and refute my points with something other than let em' die. Maybe then I'll listen

Oh, and no, I've never been on welfare. And yes, for many it is a giant con

[DMC]

-sigh-

Dude, you may be trying to troll, but some of your responses are hilarious. A bullet or a cell. Who pays for the cell?

The cell is being paid for regardless.

If someone decides that they have to have their drugs so they will commit crimes (happens now), they get dead or get put in jail eventually. You don't stop crime by buying out the criminals.


As for all the let em die stuff, c'mon. This will never be an option, and you know it

It is now in the insurance business.


And the we stuff in the end is the proverbial 'we'. Whether you like it or not your tax dollars have been enabling those fucks

You act like I have personal responsibility. That's like me saying you are enabling drug lords in Mexico because your tax dollars are going there. Did you direct them there? Did you even sign up to pay taxes? No. We are not given a choice, we don't "pay" taxes, we are robbed before the money gets to us.


The having kids response is a decent point, until you realize that they'll keep fucking and procreating regardless. Those babies will then end up in taxpayer funded hospitals with us footing the bill

That's just it. If you keep feeding homeless dogs they will hang around and have pups. Stop feeding and you just have the dog and some pups, and the dog either dies or leaves. The pups will figure it out. There won't be more dogs and pups though.

As it stands, we are footing the bill for illegal immigrant kids left and right. Your suggestion is to cater to the lazy entitled fucks. Mine is to cut them off. Yours ensures more lazy entitled fucks. Mine ensures a short period of "wtf" followed by some bitching and crime, followed by more money to spend on things we should be spending on. Prisoners don't procreate.

Austin is a fine example of this dynamic at work (ironically). 10 years ago you might see a bum on a few corners in major traffic areas. Today you will see them on every corner, the same one for a year or so. That person doesn't want to work, they want free living. Others see it and they want it too, so now you have 30 year olds out there perfectly healthy with "feed me" signs. Welfare is the same way. There are those who need it and then there are the rest who just see it as a viable alternative to work. You have to ween these crackheads off the subsidy teat by hook or by crook. Whatever works. Offering the other teat doesn't work.


Come back to reality and refute my points with something other than let em' die. Maybe then I'll listen

Get something resembling a stance other than "pay the man so he won't hurt us".


Oh, and no, I've never been on welfare. And yes, for many it is a giant con
I was raised poor. My friend lived in the projects. We thought he was rich because he had tile floors and a brick home. His mom didn't work. He had better clothes than we had and our dad worked on a farm. We didn't get welfare because my dad was too proud to accept charity. In those small towns, getting disability approved is the lottery win. It means you never work again, you have a home, you have a car, you have an income, and you don't do shit, forever. If you can live with another loser who gets welfare and food stamps, you have a higher standard of living than people who work 18 hours a day on farms and in most factories. Then they have kids who grow up and end up living across the way in the next unit, set up the same way, getting disability for drug abuse and getting welfare because they have 5 kids with different last names.

I've seen the system for over 40 years and I've lived in and out of it. I have family who work with kids from those systems at correctional facilities. My sister runs a boys home and has for 25 years where there are at least 20 kids at any given time in transition to or from some detention facility, or who were rescued from trash can homes where they were being abused. They know the system, their entire existence is predicated on the system. Their parents were allowed to exist because there is a system in place that fertilizes these nuts and enables their survival.

Don't tell me about welfare and crime, and act like I should have Stockholm syndrome for these fucking crackhead fucks. It's not going to happen.

[TheProfessor]

If I had my way, absolutely. What kind of a parent can afford drugs but not rent, food, clothes? That kind of parent is the worst thing for the kid. It guarantees that the kid will grow up and also be a dependent of the welfare system.

The negative is that the drug abuser will just not apply, so the kids will go without. Child protective services has to get involved in those cases.

Like I said, give them time to clean it up. Would you want your kids raised by drug addicts?
But what if I am the drug addict? Your proposal seemingly only applies to the poor, because they're the only ones who would undergo suspicionless testing. I would be able to raise my kids and support my addiction regardless. This is my problem with the whole thing. It's based on a presumption that will result in tests for a cross-section of society. There are plenty of other instances where people take state or federal money, but they will not be tested to ensure money is not being directed toward drugs or other illicit activities. There's no guarantee kids will get the money they need to live; the whole government appointee thing sounds cumbersome and likely far more expensive than what drug users cost tax payers now. Besides which, I'm not sure it passes Fourth Amendment muster.

[thispego]

Do people who use drugs on welfare spend all of that money on drugs? They spend it on food and basic necessities as well that allow them to at least have some form of living standards.

Take that away, and now you have drug addled people with NO money and an addiction that they can no longer sustain outside of crime. Do you think they're gonna say, "well, they pulled my welfare, better get a job so I can sustain my habit". No, they're going to rob and steal and do whatever else they can do, thus an increase in crime, an increase in jail/prison populations and on and on

A lowering of already rock bottom living standards by pulling welfare will inevitably lead to hungry people, which in turn leads to more health problems. More hospital visits in which we, the taxpayer, will foot an enormous bill because you can't turn them away. Welfare is also tied to public housing, right? Pull it and now you have more homeless people, who will also suffer more health problems because they live on the streets. Eating bad food, exposure to elements, etc. All these people will end up at the hospital for one reason or another, adding to our bill

Finally, it sets the precedent that anything tied to fed/state money is fair game for them to invade your personal liberties by demanding a drug test. Some posters before gave some good examples of that, like telling you what to eat or tying drug tests to unemployment, etc. I guess, for me, it's just another way for government to control your life, something I hate.

Now, if you want to argue that we enabled them to become what they are, I'll completely agree with you. We did. And the system is fucked. But more government meddling, to me, equates to more expensive in the long run, every time

so you want to pay them to not commit crimes? got it.

[I.R.S.]

Before you get your tax return I want a drug test. Also before any student gets any financial aid both the parents/guardian and student need to pass a drug test.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

lol MonkeyIsGod thinking people on welfare should be able to use taxpayer dollars on drugs

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Do people who use drugs on welfare spend all of that money on drugs? They spend it on food and basic necessities as well that allow them to at least have some form of living standards.

Take that away, and now you have drug addled people with NO money and an addiction that they can no longer sustain outside of crime. Do you think they're gonna say, "well, they pulled my welfare, better get a job so I can sustain my habit". No, they're going to rob and steal and do whatever else they can do, thus an increase in crime, an increase in jail/prison populations and on and on

A lowering of already rock bottom living standards by pulling welfare will inevitably lead to hungry people, which in turn leads to more health problems. More hospital visits in which we, the taxpayer, will foot an enormous bill because you can't turn them away. Welfare is also tied to public housing, right? Pull it and now you have more homeless people, who will also suffer more health problems because they live on the streets. Eating bad food, exposure to elements, etc. All these people will end up at the hospital for one reason or another, adding to our bill

Finally, it sets the precedent that anything tied to fed/state money is fair game for them to invade your personal liberties by demanding a drug test. Some posters before gave some good examples of that, like telling you what to eat or tying drug tests to unemployment, etc. I guess, for me, it's just another way for government to control your life, something I hate.

Now, if you want to argue that we enabled them to become what they are, I'll completely agree with you. We did. And the system is fucked. But more government meddling, to me, equates to more expensive in the long run, every time
:lmao are you fuckin kidding me?

"Taxpayers better finance their drug habits so we can prevent crime :cry"

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I've been a pretty far left democrat on a lot of things since I started following politics, but this is where the Democratic party pisses me off. Drug testing people requesting government aid seems like common sense so the government isn't financing the habits of a junky.

[Axe Murderer]

i know what I'm about to say probably brings nothing to the table so there's really no point in reading if you're trying to have a serious discussion in this thread

but anyway, there's nothing more annoying than beaner women in their 30's, who are on welfare, and think they are the shit. they always walk into gas stations with their UT shirts, talking loudly with their chests puffed out high. somebody needs to remind them that unless they are cleaning our toilets for minimum wage, they need to just do society a favor and kill themselves

[JoeChalupa]

I've been a pretty far left democrat on a lot of things since I started following politics, but this is where the Democratic party pisses me off. Drug testing people requesting government aid seems like common sense so the government isn't financing the habits of a junky.

So after a national disaster like a tornado or flood all victims should be required to take a drug test right? Sounds fair to me. Before a Governor can ask for federal funds they too need to take a drug test. Pee in the cup Perry!

[JoeChalupa]

I too don't have a problem with it but I also think it will cost more and not truly solve the issue.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Before a Governor can ask for federal funds they too need to take a drug test.
Yeah because that's what the law is you stupid fuck.

[Axe Murderer]

crofl why am i not surprised that me and dok agree on this?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Tbh maybe the welfare beaners wearing UT shirts piss you off, the beaners who save up from each welfare check so they can buy a 200 level ticket when the Lakers visit Phoenix piss me off like no other.

For all the shit I talk about UT the dream masters program I'm applying for is UT's accounting program so.... :lol

[Axe Murderer]

as much of a moron as he is, im with DMC

who cares if these beaners, n!ggers, and spear chuckers die because they have nothing to curb their addiction? It's called natural selection. Some will turn their life around and the other worthless fucks will just die leaving the world a better place.

Darwin would be rolling around in his grave right now if he had to listen to those opposing this bill

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

as much of a moron as he is, im with DMC

who cares if these beaners, n!ggers, and spear chuckers die because they have nothing to curb their addiction? It's called natural selection. Some will turn their life around and the other worthless fucks will just die leaving the world a better place.

Darwin would be rolling around in his grave right now if he had to listen to those opposing this bill
Motherfucking cosigned sons. If a fuckin junkie can't stop doing drugs and can't live without welfare, then it's not the government's problem if he dies. All that type of person is doing is draining money from the government, empowering drug dealers with a very loyal customer, and endangering other people with a habit he's willing to kill for. He's not offering a dam thing to society.

[CuckingFunt]

as much of a moron as he is, im with DMC

who cares if these beaners, n!ggers, and spear chuckers die because they have nothing to curb their addiction? It's called natural selection. Some will turn their life around and the other worthless fucks will just die leaving the world a better place.

Darwin would be rolling around in his grave right now if he had to listen to those opposing this bill

Obvious trolling aside, the idea that a proposed governmental program acts as an example of natural selection is... intriguing.

[JoeChalupa]

Yeah because that's what the law is you stupid fuck.

It ain't the law yet mr. knowitall.

[JoeChalupa]

Don't forget to mention all the white trash, wife beatin' shirt wearin' rednecks on welfare too. I'm not surprised at all as I know there are different views on this issue. And wgaf about UT.

[Sportcamper]

Don't forget to mention all the white trash, wife beatin' shirt wearin' rednecks...

So what are u sayin…Dat it’s a bad ting?

http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/b/b8/Wifebeater.jpg

[DMC]

But what if I am the drug addict? Your proposal seemingly only applies to the poor, because they're the only ones who would undergo suspicionless testing. It sucks to be poor. Tell me something new. Don't apply, don't get tested. Don't do drugs, don't worry about testing. See how easy that was?

What if it was you? If it was your kids, and you were a drug addict, the state should step in and take your kids from you. Get your drug on or get your kid on, don't get both on.

I would be able to raise my kids and support my addiction regardless. But you aren't going to the government asking for living assistance while you are supporting your drug habit with the money you are given. Therein lies the difference. Government interference into your life is preventable by not filling out the documents that give consent.

This is my problem with the whole thing. It's based on a presumption that will result in tests for a cross-section of society. Every group of people is a cross section. The military has to be drug tested. They are a cross section of society. Should we also not drug test the military?

There are plenty of other instances where people take state or federal money, but they will not be tested to ensure money is not being directed toward drugs or other illicit activities. So? There are different speed limits for different parts of town. Things are applied as they are needed.

There's no guarantee kids will get the money they need to live; the whole government appointee thing sounds cumbersome and likely far more expensive than what drug users cost tax payers now. Besides which, I'm not sure it passes Fourth Amendment muster.
They can be denied money. There's no provision for government assistance in the BoR. Unlawful search and seizure, right to be secure in persons, is given up when consent is given. Otherwise every employer including the military is violating it with random drug testing.

[DMC]

Before you get your tax return I want a drug test. Also before any student gets any financial aid both the parents/guardian and student need to pass a drug test.
Tax return, no. That's already my money. Student Aid isn't generally given to the student, but to the school.

Imagine living under your parents' roof and expecting to be able to do drugs and be a lazy fuck while they pay for your way of life. When you are getting taxpayer money to live on, you are under their roof and you should expect that you are being monitored. There should not be an attractiveness to welfare.

[DMC]

So after a national disaster like a tornado or flood all victims should be required to take a drug test right? Sounds fair to me. Before a Governor can ask for federal funds they too need to take a drug test. Pee in the cup Perry!
Slippery slope. There's a difference between emergency assistance and lifetime assistance. A mother of 5 living in government housing with her boyfriend isn't necessarily a victim. If she's content with that, and bilks the taxpayer for all she can get while funding the drug habits of herself and her bf, that's not the same as someone being left homeless because of a natural disaster.

Let's keep it focused on the situation at hand. We could posit hundreds of alternative examples. Why shouldn't welfare recipients be required to be screened for illegal drug use in order to receive taxpayer money?

[Trainwreck2100]

Before you get your tax return I want a drug test. Also before any student gets any financial aid both the parents/guardian and student need to pass a drug test.

Before you get financial aid there's a question about whether you have ever been charged and convicted with any drug related crime. If the answer is yes, you get no financial aid. It has been ammended to only include charges incurred while on financial aid.

[JoeChalupa]

Slippery slope. There's a difference between emergency assistance and lifetime assistance. A mother of 5 living in government housing with her boyfriend isn't necessarily a victim. If she's content with that, and bilks the taxpayer for all she can get while funding the drug habits of herself and her bf, that's not the same as someone being left homeless because of a natural disaster.

Let's keep it focused on the situation at hand. We could posit hundreds of alternative examples. Why shouldn't welfare recipients be required to be screened for illegal drug use in order to receive taxpayer money?

Why shouldn't recipients of ANY taxpayer money be required to take a drug test? How do we know they are NOT going to spend the money on drugs? There are always cases of fraud when it comes to government money.

[jag]

Enough is enough. Generations of fucking lazy ass people need to meet natural selection.

I see you, DMC.

As gay as you are, I agree.

[Sisk]

TBH, I don't care about people who misspend welfare money very much. Its impossible to get people to spend that money wisely at some point and shit like this that doesn't look to solve anything is a worst waste of money.

WTF? You bitch about tax dollars being wasted then you don't care about how these people are wasting their money? :lol

[jag]

Sympathy and compassion are not things I should be forced into. I voluntarily give to charities here in town. But I give to those charities because I know where the money is going and how it is being used. It doesn't make you a heartless SOB because you don't want to see YOUR money given away indiscriminately.

You'd be foolish to think this bill is going to solve any real problems. But this type of thinking is a step in the right direction. Which could potentially lead to greater changes.

There's a fine line between people who truly need help and people who simply want it. But when it comes to the money I've worked for, I should have a say in where it goes.

[Trainwreck2100]

Sympathy and compassion are not things I should be forced into. I voluntarily give to charities here in town. But I give to those charities because I know where the money is going and how it is being used. It doesn't make you a heartless SOB because you don't want to see YOUR money given away indiscriminately.

You'd be foolish to think this bill is going to solve any real problems. But this type of thinking is a step in the right direction. Which could potentially lead to greater changes.

There's a fine line between people who truly need help and people who simply want it. But when it comes to the money I've worked for, I should have a say in where it goes.

this reasoning is flawed and stupid. Anyone whoever worked with a drug user knows how easy it is to pass those test. And once they get the job, they go back to using without fear of being tested again. If there aren't randoms in this program, which there aren't, it's a waste of money.

[jag]

this reasoning is flawed and stupid. Anyone whoever worked with a drug user knows how easy it is to pass those test. And once they get the job, they go back to using without fear of being tested again. If there aren't randoms in this program, which there aren't, it's a waste of money.


You'd be foolish to think this bill is going to solve any real problems. But this type of thinking is a step in the right direction. Which could potentially lead to greater changes.

[Boris]

This thread is a buzz killer. Time to fire up another bowl.

[Axe Murderer]

You'd be foolish to think this bill is going to solve any real problems. But this type of thinking is a step in the right direction. Which could potentially lead to greater changes.


exactly


Obvious trolling aside, the idea that a proposed governmental program acts as an example of natural selection is... intriguing.

i wish somebody would shove an AIDs infested shank up your gooch when you least expect it

[Trainwreck2100]

i wish somebody would shove an AIDs infested shank up your gooch when you least expect it

AIDS takes to long to kill someone fucking rhotovirus bullshit. But i like where your head's at.

[DMC]

Why shouldn't recipients of ANY taxpayer money be required to take a drug test? How do we know they are NOT going to spend the money on drugs? There are always cases of fraud when it comes to government money.

Apples and oranges. You are focused on the taxpayer money, not on the person who's requesting it.

It's blatantly obvious why victims of a natural disaster need aid. It's not obvious why welfare recipients continue to need it. The test is to make the drug portion go away, not to deny benefits. It doesn't address prescription abuse, but like JaG said, you have to start somewhere. You cannot simply have a free living scheme set up and think you are going to ever get a handle on the deficit.

[JoeChalupa]

Apples and oranges. You are focused on the taxpayer money, not on the person who's requesting it.

No, I'm focusing on the person requesting it. Everyone receiving government funds should be required to take a drug test.

[JoeChalupa]

And there are some who will blatantly take advantage of a situation when a disaster occurs. It happens.

[DMC]

No, I'm focusing on the person requesting it. Everyone receiving government funds should be required to take a drug test.
No you aren't.

Just because you have the person in your sentence doesn't mean you are focusing on the person.

The commonality, according to you, is the request for taxpayer money. That's the lever that should drive the drug test. Not the person, but the taxpayer money request.

I don't care who they drug test, but you cannot say it's the same thing just because both are getting taxpayer (not government) funds.

[DMC]

And there are some who will blatantly take advantage of a situation when a disaster occurs. It happens.

Those are limited situations and that is a part of the landscape of running a nation. Doling out free living coupons to drug addicts isn't the same thing as being schemed or conned.

Clayton Williams fucked up by saying the girl might as well lay back and enjoy it if they are being raped. That seems to be what some here are saying, that we should just give our money to the drug addicted trash so they don't hurt us.

[JoeChalupa]

No you aren't.

Just because you have the person in your sentence doesn't mean you are focusing on the person.

The commonality, according to you, is the request for taxpayer money. That's the lever that should drive the drug test. Not the person, but the taxpayer money request.

I don't care who they drug test, but you cannot say it's the same thing just because both are getting taxpayer (not government) funds.

Yes, I am and just because you say I'm not doesn't make it so and yes I can say that because they are both getting money from the government.

[JoeChalupa]

And you are calling welfare recipients drug addicts which I would say is the minority and not the majority.

[Drachen]

And you are calling welfare recipients drug addicts which I would say is the minority and not the majority.

I read drug addicts, not welfare recipients. (i.e. quit giving free money to the drug addicts).

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And you are calling welfare recipients drug addicts which I would say is the minority and not the majority.
This law would have little to no impact on the lives of welfare recipients who don't use drugs.

[CuckingFunt]

i wish somebody would shove an AIDs infested shank up your gooch when you least expect it


AIDS takes to long to kill someone fucking rhotovirus bullshit. But i like where your head's at.

Doubt it will happen. The only people who ever get pissed off at me are pussies who are too afraid of women to do anything other than seethe silently in the corner.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

AIDS takes to long to kill someone fucking rhotovirus bullshit. But i like where your head's at.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/12/09/magicjohnson_narrowweb__300x540,0.jpg

[Agloco]

Should they drug test those receiving unemployment benefits too? And disability or government pension payments?

:tu

But there are detractors:

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

[Big P]

Law in effect bump.

[Wild Cobra]

Law in effect bump.
Good.

Great move Florida. That's what I call leadership. Maybe other states will follow.

[Wild Cobra's Surgeon]

Good.

Great move Florida. That's what I call leadership. Maybe other states will follow.

Agreed sir, it's time to stop funding the mud people's drug addictions:toast

[Nathan Explosion]

Good.

Great move Florida. That's what I call leadership. Maybe other states will follow.

I never thought I'd say this, but good job Florida.

[mingus]

it's sickening how many people screw the system already, and i have no doubt that they'll contintue to screw it even if this law is implemented. people who are lazy shits who want everything handed to them are damn good at exploiting every and any opportunity to their benefit so that they don't have to work for it, and they'll find a way to get around this law some how some way just like the do everything else. it's the only thing they're good at. it'll probably be a law that end ups being more useless ineffective and wasteful of tax dollars than not.

[boutons_deux]

it's sickening how many people screw the system already, and i have no doubt that they'll contintue to screw it ...... a law that end ups being more useless ineffective and wasteful of tax dollars than not.

you talkin about Wall St, and the entire financial sector stealing from citizens? MUCH more $Ts stolen thru financial fraud and other financial crimes than a 100 years of mythical Welfare Queens.