• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

Because it ain't the government's god damned business.

It is when the government is disbursing money. People that don't want the money don't have to have it. People that do want is need to comply with the law.


What's next, ending the pesky imposition that they fill out forms? Is presenting ID too much of an intrusion?
 
Maybe now since the economy is still broken and the high tech sector got hit pretty hard. Who is the average welfare recipient?

End of the day, people have the right to secure their persons against unreasonable search. Drug tests merely for accepting government dollars for assistance programs we've authorized to help the poor does not make for a reasonable search.

You're citing the Fourth Amendment.

Very good.

Cite the clause of the Constitution giving people the right to someone else's money.
 
And again, your catch 22. It's dumb. It's against the point of having this stupid system. Welfare exists, it's their money once they recieve it. You no longer have a say in the matter.

Wrong.

They're receiving the money on the pretext they need food. If they use the money for something else, they're committing fraud.
 
It is an unreasonable search, the individual has right to secure their person against unreasonable search. So yes, it is unreasonable government force. Just accepting a welfare check does not abdicate any of our freedoms.

It's perfectly reasonable. No one wanting to be searched is required to submit.

It could be, depending on how invasive the test is. Of course, there is less restriction on non-government (private) force than government force.

There's no force at all. Don't want to take your employer's drug test? Quit. Don't want to take the government's drug test? Don't ask for money from taxpayers.

FTIW.
 
People arent thinking about the far reaching problem thats trying to be corrected here. Most of these welfare reciepients have kids, the public funds is supposed to keep the kids fed with a roof over their head, granted nothing fancy but survival. Parents that use drugs do NOT put the kids first unfortunately they put their habit first...I totally agree that a drug test is not adding to any pain in suffering it may make kids suffer less and at the minimum make them be straight when they get the money

The far reaching problem is the assumption the government should be able to take money from people who earn it to provide a living for people who haven't.
 
Oh! So, you're actually trying to say that conservatives don't want the government to have more control of our lives because they're for lower taxes. No, they aren't so much for control of our money as they are for control of other things.

Libertarians would allow the individual to decide on which chemicals are bad, who they should marry, and whether to carry a fetus to term. Conservatives position on those issues are quite different, aren't they?

Libertarians also insist the government not take money from some people to hand off to others for unconstitutional purposes. Like welfare.
 
Oh! So, you're actually trying to say that conservatives don't want the government to have more control of our lives because they're for lower taxes. No, they aren't so much for control of our money as they are for control of other things.

Libertarians would allow the individual to decide on which chemicals are bad, who they should marry, and whether to carry a fetus to term. Conservatives position on those issues are quite different, aren't they?

Let me tell you what else Libertarians would do. They would let the individual decide which chemicals are bad. And if that decision was not good, the individual would be accountable for the results. A true libertarian would be fully against redistribution so as to obtain even a remote modicum of equal results. A true Libertarian would expouse accountability for one's own actions.

Libertarians don't pay for other people's crack.
 
I gotta help out these "Libertarians" a bit more. Some have lost their way. Here, from the National Libertarian Party Website.

The Libertarian Party believes it is time for a new approach to fighting poverty. It is a program based on opportunity, work, and individual responsibility.

1. End Welfare
None of the proposals currently being advanced by either conservatives or liberals is likely to fix the fundamental problems with our welfare system. Current proposals for welfare reform, including block grants, job training, and "workfare" represent mere tinkering with a failed system.

It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.

We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.

more: Poverty and Welfare | Libertarian Party

There's plenty more there so that you can learn what "Libertarian" really means ;)
 
In some ways, this would have seemed a no-brainer. While it got some political challenges, it seems headed for Constitutional muster as well.



I would like to think that this shoul dbe common-sense policy nationwide for anyone on any government assistance, to include those getting a government paycheck of any sort.

Constitutional claims or not, I think this one hard to oppose politically. Of course, I am for the legalization of all drugs, with conditions, but would still want drug testing mandated regardless.

I agree with Rick Scott on this one (except that he should use a company that he does not have a vested interest in), welfare should be a hand up, not a hand out, so common sense we can do to curtail behaviors that keep one on welfare roles longer than they need to be should be included within that program.

As far as constitutional issues, that can probably be resolved by having people sign a contract as a condition to stay on the program or to join it, since being on the program is voluntary in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I like 'hand-up not hand-out'. Welfare has a tendency to lead us out of society. The link becomes an anonymous state and we lose grip.
 
Last edited:
Libertarians also insist the government not take money from some people to hand off to others for unconstitutional purposes. Like welfare.

They do have that in common with conservatives. The difference is the belief in individual liberty and responsibility.
 
Back
Top Bottom