• 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

Oh goodness no. I think we should have treatment available. If you are going to give them a drug test, then also give them treatment.



Typical conservative mentality. Either I'm for anti drug laws or I'm for drug cartels. :roll:

So, I have to pay for the treatment, too? **** that ****!!
 
He and his wife should be the ones in jail IMO. Taxpayer money being funneled to his "wife's" company, what a joke.

Gov. Rick Scott, Solantic and conflict of interest: What's the deal? - St. Petersburg Times
If you have a $62 million investment, representing the biggest single chunk of your $218 million in wealth, and you put it in a trust under your wife's name, does that mean you're no longer involved in the company?

Florida Gov. Rick Scott says it does.

Scott has aggressively pursued policies like testing state workers and welfare recipients for drugs, switching Medicaid patients to private HMOs and shrinking public health clinics. All these changes could benefit that $62 million investment, but Scott sees no legal conflict between his public role and private investments.

Solantic Urgent Care | Florida Walk-In Clinic & Immediate Care
 
As far as I am concerned. Good. I don't mind pissing in front of someone, do it all the time in a public restroom. It really is simple. Do drugs, don't eat. Don't do drugs and eat. Personally I'd rather eat. But hey...thats just me.

You are missing the point or perhaps you want to ignore it. We are not talking about drug addicts. Most people who need assistance from the state are NOT drug addicts. Most of the people who need public assistance are in dire straits because they can't find work.
 
You are missing the point or perhaps you want to ignore it. We are not talking about drug addicts. Most people who need assistance from the state are NOT drug addicts. Most of the people who need public assistance are in dire straits because they can't find work.

Nope, not missing the point. Being as most companies require drug testing before being hired those that are seeking work should not be doing drugs. If they are then of course they can't find work. Companies do not want to hire druggies. So, being as this is the case those that are actually seeking jobs and doing what it takes to get those jobs will not have to worry about failing a piss test. IE they will recieve the help they need because they are not doing drugs which would stop them from getting jobs.
 
If it was just the drug users, I would agree with you, but I don't believe in making their children starve to prove a point. I am just not that cold hearted.

if they are drug addicts the kids need removed from the home until the parent gets clean. Sorry, that's just how I feel about it.
Also if an able bodied person is on welfare they should be looking for work. You can't get hired anywhere if you can't pass a drug test. Oh yea, and if you take a drug test for a job, PLEASE DON'T CALL THE NEXT MORNING AND ASK IF YOU PASSED. :)
 
You are missing the point or perhaps you want to ignore it. We are not talking about drug addicts. Most people who need assistance from the state are NOT drug addicts. Most of the people who need public assistance are in dire straits because they can't find work.

Then, most people don't have to worry about losing their bennies. We can just cut off the ones that are buying dope on our dime. Which mean, that it will be easier to provide bennies to the folks who really need them. Sounds like a win-win to me.
 
if they are drug addicts the kids need removed from the home until the parent gets clean. Sorry, that's just how I feel about it.
Also if an able bodied person is on welfare they should be looking for work. You can't get hired anywhere if you can't pass a drug test. Oh yea, and if you take a drug test for a job, PLEASE DON'T CALL THE NEXT MORNING AND ASK IF YOU PASSED. :)

Wow..people do this? Last time I took a piss test to get a job I was notified by the people that did the test before I even left that I was clean.
 
Wow..people do this? Last time I took a piss test to get a job I was notified by the people that did the test before I even left that I was clean.

You didn't already know??
 
Wow..people do this? Last time I took a piss test to get a job I was notified by the people that did the test before I even left that I was clean.

Yes, at least once. My husband years ago applied for a job and they actually took strands of hair to test. He got the job but maybe it was because another applicant did just that. They all laughed about it.:)
 
If a parent decided they didn't want to feed a child because they had a disability, they would be most likely find themselves sitting in prison. This governor and those who support this bill are no different. Drug addiction is a disease and can be cured or managed. If I were a dictator and came to power, I'd know some of the first people to kill.
 
You didn't already know??

Of course I did. Doesn't mean they didn't inform me about it anyways. I was on my way out the door when the nurse at the counter told me to wait a minute. Then the technician came and told me it.
 
Knew someone would bring this up. IMO anyone that does drugs should have thier children taken away. Do this and the children won't suffer not only from not having food but also from not having drug addicts as parents.

OK, so you have now taken the children away. They are now property of the government. What do we do with the kids, now that we have custody of them, and how will we pay for it?
 
Of course I did. Doesn't mean they didn't inform me about it anyways. I was on my way out the door when the nurse at the counter told me to wait a minute. Then the technician came and told me it.

I've never heard of same day service. But, then it didn't really matter since I never had to study for a drug test.
 
If a parent decided they didn't want to feed a child because they had a disability, they would be most likely find themselves sitting in prison. This governor and those who support this bill are no different. Drug addiction is a disease and can be cured or managed. If I were a dictator and came to power, I'd know some of the first people to kill.

Or put the kid up for adoption. IE no prison time required.

And yes drug addiction can be cured/managed. As such perhaps they should be getting help instead of toking it up while spending tax dollars.
 
OK, so you have now taken the children away. They are now property of the government. What do we do with the kids, now that we have custody of them, and how will we pay for it?

Crap...had a post all done up but got an error when I tried to post it.

So put simply...there are already programs around that are designed to take care of children who have been taken away from their parents. Use em. If needed give em more funding via the money that will be saved because drug addicts are no longer recieving welfare benefits because of their drug addiction.
 
It's simple logic. You take the poorest group of people who at the same time are addicted to drugs and you take the money away that they have been using to support their habit. Do you think they are magically going to be cured of their drug habits? Do you think that they are just going to be able to up and quit? These are not people who can afford treatment.

Sounds like they might have a problem.

Since the Mayor doesn't have a problem, then it's not the Mayor's problem.

These are people who will likely steal, prostitute, gamble, or whatever it takes to get their fix. They are going to end up in prison where the tax payers will end up paying a lot more. Heck, the drug tests aren't free either. That will cost tax payers quite substantially as well.

Well, just execute them, instead. Their lives have been a complete waste, and, according to all those people who want to maximize the number of abortions, a life not worth living is better if it's not lived. So, if it's expense you're worried about, here's an alternative program:

Make cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines completely free, so that any adult can go to a distribution center and take as much of whatever he wants for no cost to him whatsoever. However, the drugs provided must be chemicall pure and uncut.

That's almost certain to reduce the number of addicts in a very short period of time, without any problems of drug-dependent criminal activity.

The addict doesn't care about themselves, and the Mayor certainly doesn't care about them, so why not implement this beneficial national program?


You really think you are morally superior to these people?

Yep.

A lot of these people live very crappy lives and drugs are about the only escape they have.

So?

What's your point, that other people should bear the addict's financial burdens?

Most started well before they were even adults and have been addicted for years. All these kinds of laws do is take them off the streets and put them in prison on the tax payer's dime. If you were born in their circumstances, you would likely have turned out the same way.

Ah, the path of "Wish you were there", which isn't a Pink Floyd song.
 
I think the cost of drug testing is going to cost much more than amount we will be saving from those that do use drugs. This has actually already been touched on in another thread specific to Florida. If it would save money, or if the drug testing itself was free then I would probably be all for it, but it is most likely going to waste money and not be effective. I think it is just Rick Scott trying to make money for his business.

You are, of course, missing the obvious.

Many druggies will stop applying for handouts once it becomes obvious druggies won't get them, and they won't bother to be tested.

Also drug testing isn't that expensive any more.

Finally, since drug use is a crime, also announce that all failed applicants will have their test results reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency which will then provide probable cause to search their residence, their persons, and their vehicles, and, of course, all persons and property found in those residences.

THAT'LL reduce the cost of drug testing and the amount of welfare payments enormously.
 
I"ve always said that if we're going to drug test welfare recipients we should also drug test our politicians as well as the employees, managers, and executives of any business that receives a government contract.

Certainly the politicians and their staff.

Possibly the officers of corporations under government contract.

The employees? Certainly not.
 
The addict doesn't care about themselves, and the Mayor certainly doesn't care about them, so why not implement this beneficial national program?

Or we could just seek to reduce poverty which directly contributes to drug use, provide treatment to drug abusers, and reduce the penalty of drug crimes to fines that go to pay for the treatment programs.

The Mayor should work on developing some human compassion.
 
So, remind why drugs are illegal again? Except for alcohol and tobacco, of course, because those don't have any harmful side effects.
 
Or put the kid up for adoption. IE no prison time required.

And yes drug addiction can be cured/managed. As such perhaps they should be getting help instead of toking it up while spending tax dollars.

They should be getting help, but intervention is necessary if it's bad. Often times, it quite mild. A little drink, a little toke during the bad times is self-medicating. It doesn't always mean things have gotten completely out of hand. Florida seems to think that a dirty UA is justification for starvation which leads to death.
 
Last edited:
So, remind why drugs are illegal again? Except for alcohol and tobacco, of course, because those don't have any harmful side effects.

Technically they aren't illegal, they are regulated. They are "controlled" substances. The government is free to regulate commerce.
 
Technically they aren't illegal, they are regulated. They are "controlled" substances. The government is free to regulate commerce.

Oh yeah, "controlled." The kind of "controlled" where you get thrown in the slammer for 10 years for possessing/selling the stuff. I tend to spell that kind of "controlled" i-l-l-e-g-a-l.
 
Oh yeah, "controlled." The kind of "controlled" where you get thrown in the slammer for 10 years for possessing/selling the stuff. I tend to spell that kind of "controlled" i-l-l-e-g-a-l.

Yes, they are criminalized, and I would love it if the government would decriminalize them. Continue to regulate them but use fines and taxes.
 
Or we could just seek to reduce poverty which directly contributes to drug use, provide treatment to drug abusers, and reduce the penalty of drug crimes to fines that go to pay for the treatment programs.

The Mayor should work on developing some human compassion.

Human compassion IS NOT defined by how much money the government takes from the productive to support the wilfully self-destructive.

The Mayor's method of reducing the number of drug addicts has several points that neither left-wing "pity programs" nor right-wing "condescending compassion" programs can claim.

It's inexpensive.

It's non-coercive.

It would work as advertised.

It's self-regulating.

Also, by making drugs freely available, the horrid expense of the drug interdiction agencies is eliminated, as is the awful uncontitutional intrusions on the civil liberties of every American in the name of drug prohibition.

It would de-fund the Latin American drug cartels and promote national stability in a number of crumbling nations.

Were's the downside?
 
Back
Top Bottom