Reply With Quote
seems fair
Rest of the story here: LinkFlorida 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.
seems fair
Funny, because I think it seems expensive and necessary.
lol how much will that cost?
Yep. I have no problem with this.
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.
Sometimes necessary things are expensive.
Cymbals take a pretty big bite out of my wallet. But they're oh so necessary.
Why is it necessary?
Maybe it'll cut down on food costs due to decreasing the munchies?
Should they drug test those receiving unemployment benefits too? And disability or government pension payments?
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.
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/
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"
Is there a large problem with drug use among welfare recipients?
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 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.
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"
Postal workers, police office, fire fighters, teachers, all government ee's, pee before get drivers license, etc..
Florida seems to have researched this in the past. Their conclusion? Drug use among welfare recipients no difference than among everyone else.
Is that a lot, a little, a medium amount???
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?
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?
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.
Well obviously it would be a short term investment with expectations of long-term rewards.
I am not trying to sound like a , 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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
