Reply With Quote
Simple solution is to charge the recipients for the drug test. That way no money is wasted,and all the taxpayers are happy.
"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 cir stances have found ways to move forward. Those who make a career out of receiving charity are ing worthless suckers who need to be shot anyhow.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 su ionless. The Michigan appellate courts handled this earlier in the decade and found such laws uncons utional.
Simple solution is to charge the recipients for the drug test. That way no money is wasted,and all the taxpayers are happy.
If you read the legislation, it does not affect the goodies allocated to the children. Just the adults.
Stupid, feel-good and ultimately useless legislation.
What else is new
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.
Good they need to do that EVERYwhere!!!
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?Their children can still secure assistance from the state through a designated person as long as the person passes the drug test.
I'm not sure I care one way or another about drug testing the parents, but are the kids going to be left starving?
They tried some other dumb 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!
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" like this even though it doesnt make any fiscal sense, is what got us in trouble and continues to do so.
Uhh, not really. What makes you think this? A lot of laws in the US are outdated.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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?
A day late and shet, but this is awesome. Awesome.
Good.
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.
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
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
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:
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 do ent. It does give appropriate hair samples, which I would assume are tested in urine also:(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.
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:
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 quan ative 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.
(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:
exactly how could you attribute higher crime and health care costs to lazy drug addicts being kicked off welfare now?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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
