• 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 Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

And I agree with this decision. There is no evidence to suggest that, because somebody is poor, he or she is automatically a drug addict, anymore than, if someone were a banker, he or she is automatically a crook. :mrgreen: But, seriously, the law was based on stereotyping, and I believe that SCOTUS will uphold the ruling.

I'm mostly against it because it cannot be uniformly enforced. A lot of people on welfare are raging alcoholics. They end up at the liquor store every time they collect their cheques. Problem is there is no pee test for alcohol, or tobacco. Even some illegal drugs are not testable.

So really you are just going to be targetting the hard addicts, and those people need medical help anyway, not more punishments.

I've also read that in other countries where drug testing for welfare recipients happens, there is no appreciable money-saving impact on the welfare system. In fact, the testing system usually wastes more money than it saves.
 
Not in Texas, they can't. When I was on probation for my DWI, I saw lots of dumbasses get their probation revoked and sent to jail becuase they tried to beat the system. Yes, there are lots of things out there you can use to try to beat a piss test, but they don't work. The best ones make you piss clear, and that will automatically get you in trouble, because the authorities know that, if there is NOTHING in your piss, not even the normal stuff, then you have used one of those products.

Since I am actually in college and spent a good semester actually living with stoners, I would be more then happy to tell you there are plenty of ways to pass a piss test ahead of time without using any aforementioned products. One of the stoners was happy to inform me that if they know they have a drug test coming in a week, they simply go to the sauna every day and drink 1-2 gallons of water daily at which point they will likely pass with flying colors.

So I wouldn't be surprised if a significant amount of people on welfare were still using drugs; but non-randomized drug tests are simply not the way to go about it. And since randomized drug tests are even more expensive, then I think we need a better system. How about we just put welfare cash on a non-reusable debit card that cannot be converted to cash or withdraw cash?
 
Not in Texas, they can't. When I was on probation for my DWI, I saw lots of dumbasses get their probation revoked and sent to jail becuase they tried to beat the system. Yes, there are lots of things out there you can use to try to beat a piss test, but they don't work. The best ones make you piss clear, and that will automatically get you in trouble, because the authorities know that, if there is NOTHING in your piss, not even the normal stuff, then you have used one of those products.

Don't bet on it. I know several people here in Texas who, throughout the years, have beaten a drug pee test. I don't think you can beat follicle test or a blood test, but a pee test is not too difficult to fool.
 
Pretty big assumption. My piss comes out clear quite often because I ALWAYS walk around with a bottled water with me. I bet I drink a gallon of water a day.

If I put down 2 glasses, poured stale Sprite into one and peed into the other, I'd bet you money that you couldn't tell the difference.

I'll bet a laboratory can tell you which is which. BTW, just drinking a lot of water will not fool these tests for one minute.
 
Absolutely ridiculous "Judicial Activist" logic at its worst. How on Earth does it count as "unreasonable search and seizure" to require that those who receive federal aid for poverty not be under the influence of substances that might adversely affect their judgement and ability to wisely spend the funds they receive? The Government is under absolutely no constitutional obligation to provide financial aid to the poor in the first place.

It is a voluntary program that participants sign on to in exchange for handouts. As far as I'm concerned, the state should have the "right" to refuse service to whomever it damn well pleases, because the recipients have no real "right" to the handouts the state provides.

As a matter of fact, it more or less already does. There is a reason why one must be under a certain income level to even be eligible for welfare in the first place, after all.

I could never be a lawyer. Bull**** semantics and sophistry have a tendency to simply piss me off. :lol:

After reading this BS posting, I am glad people like you are in the minority.
 
In return for what?

Congressmen are on the public role. In fact, not only are these politicians living off the taxpayer, they are in a position to create laws that affect all of us. Surely these people, of all people, should take a drug test to show their employer, us, that they are of sound mind.
 
I'll bet a laboratory can tell you which is which. BTW, just drinking a lot of water will not fool these tests for one minute.

He wasn't talking about a lab. He was saying that an untrained person looking with a naked eye was determining pass/fail by color.
 
BTW, just drinking a lot of water will not fool these tests for one minute.

Pissing water results in an inclusive test. But there are tons of urine cleansing kits for purchase that remove any traces of the substances being screened without causing any suspicion.
 
You seem to lack the key understanding of just what probable cause actually means.

Withholding welfare because someone is refusing to look for a job relies on "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true". So if a person, in 3 years during a healthy economy has not found a job in a major city, it can be considered probable cause specially if they show no job applications filled out or even have a reference number that can be called to ask whether or not they've applied for a job.

However, if the same person living in the boonies, has no means to move and hasn't found a job in said boonies - there is no probable cause available to suggest they haven't been looking for a job.

As it stands. there is no statistical probability to justify drug tests on welfare recipients. There isn't a huge drove of welfare recipients using their money to buy drugs. Far more likely to spend the money on cigarrettes or alcohol which are perfectly legal. So I ask, what suspicions & circumstances (i.e. probably cause) can you have for saying that a person who is on welfare is also doing drugs?

To simplify my post: If probable cause means that there needs to be a suspicion backed by some form of evidence, what form of evidence would you use to justify drug tests on all welfare recipients? This is specially considering that nowhere near the majority are out doing drugs.

Absolute nonsense.

First off, the obligation to look for work while recieving unemployment benefits is a weekly requirement in my state, not something that they wait "3 years" to enforce. You pulled that analogy completely out of your ass.

Secondly, who on earth died and left you with the authority to deterimine what is and is not probable cause? Again, if the state has "probable cause" to drug test its employees, it absolutely has probable cause to drug test welfare recipients.

Quite frankly, the poor and unemployed are far more likely to use and be addicted to illegal substances than those who are actively employed with the Federal Government in the first place. That is more or less all the "probable cause" one should really need. I have brought this example up time and again for a reason. Unsurprisingly, you continue to completely ignore it because the precedent it sets completely destroys your argument.

I dare you to name one logically and legally consistent reason why the state should have the right to withhold employment and pay from employees and military service members who fail drug screenings, but not welfare reipients. The simple fact of the matter is that you can't, because no such reason exists. The distinction is purely arbitrary and based exclusively off of emotionally based judicial moralism, not actual legal precedent or constitutional law.

i.e. "We can't withhold welfare from drug users, because people might starve in the streets!"

Liberal courts actually affirm the stereotype that minorities and those living below the poverty line are habitual drug users by showing such an overt measure of paranoia where laws such as this are concerned.

After reading this BS posting, I am glad people like you are in the minority.

Yes, I am a member of a minority which seems to only grow smaller with every passing day. We like to be referred to as the "clinically sane."

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

God forbid the junkies and potheads not get their government handouts! :roll:
 
Last edited:
Curious as to why drug (ab)use is an approved no-no for gun ownership, and for parole/probation (even for non-drug related crimes) yet just peachy for getting welfare cash. While drug/alcohol addiction/abuse is not a major cause of poverty it certainly hinders one's chances of getting out of it. Attempts to bar any restrictions to getting "automatic" public assistance are not wise public policy. I would insist upon a HS education, the presentation of a personal improvement plan and requiring strict adherence to that plan. I have no real objection to an ocassional helping hand, but would prefer it to be via privately funded charity, but see no reason for all carrot and no stick. We have had a "war on poverty" since the 1960s, and have spent trillions fighting it, yet are stuck with 15% of the US population still so classified. To assert that the current wefare (in all of its many forms) programs are working simply defies common sense.

But do you have to pee in a cup before purchasing a firearm? Do you have to routinely pee in a cup to keep that firearm?

Now if I understand the 'welfare' system properly get a drug bust and you lose your housing and other major benefits. If you get busted for drugs no one comes to the house demanding your firearms. What works against the drugs and alcohol hinder a rise out of poverty argument is the rates of abuse seem the same in the working sector. The problem with the generalization is you can test positive for alcohol, just not intoxicated at the time- drugs have zero tolerance.

My thought for both business and assistance is a cup of pee to sign on, after that only if you can document signs of drug abuse.

Gipper- you can pee clear and argue all you want- if the specific gravity doesn't come back correct but they will reject you. Wave all the empty water bottles you wish. Now-a-days most tests screen for the cover crap head shops sell, as well as high Niacin. beating the test is difficult, more depends on what test they use more than what you do to dodge it.
 
But do you have to pee in a cup before purchasing a firearm? Do you have to routinely pee in a cup to keep that firearm?

Now if I understand the 'welfare' system properly get a drug bust and you lose your housing and other major benefits. If you get busted for drugs no one comes to the house demanding your firearms. What works against the drugs and alcohol hinder a rise out of poverty argument is the rates of abuse seem the same in the working sector. The problem with the generalization is you can test positive for alcohol, just not intoxicated at the time- drugs have zero tolerance.

My thought for both business and assistance is a cup of pee to sign on, after that only if you can document signs of drug abuse.

Gipper- you can pee clear and argue all you want- if the specific gravity doesn't come back correct but they will reject you. Wave all the empty water bottles you wish. Now-a-days most tests screen for the cover crap head shops sell, as well as high Niacin. beating the test is difficult, more depends on what test they use more than what you do to dodge it.

That is an apples to cinder blocks comparison. I was not awarded that firearm by the gov't, I bought it legally using my own funds. Welfare is simply a monitary reward for failure, taken involuntarily from the paychecks of some and given to others on a recurring basis. When I, as a fellow citizen, am expected to pay my own rent, buy my own food and to pay taxes (if I make "too much") then why should another, non-disabled citizen have a "right" to get that given to them? I do not consider it unreasonable for those requesting public assistance, to have hoops to jump through in order to show a genuine attempt to obey the laws and to make an effort to get their act together. Gun rights and welfare rights are not nearly the same; unless you think that ALL should be given welfare or that the poor should be given guns. ;)
 
Beyond the moral question it carries a cost much higher than the benefit. A perfect example of ideology trumping actual results. The reasoning ranged from some "tough love" for drug abusers to protecting tax payers. Multiple arguments thrown out hoping for something to stick, which typically seems to be the case with blowhard ideologues. All you have to do is visit the about the thread on the Voting Rights case being held by the Supreme Court. It ranges from "it's a useless measure"....to some weird argument which is essentially arguing that there's a need to expand it because discrimination happens outside the areas covered by the law??
 
Apparently the Federal courts have decided that welfare also is a constitutional right.

Everyone knows that welfare fraud and disability fraud overall is entirely legal anyway.
 
Pissing water results in an inclusive test. But there are tons of urine cleansing kits for purchase that remove any traces of the substances being screened without causing any suspicion.

Have you personally ever done this to pass a drug test?
 
That is an apples to cinder blocks comparison. I was not awarded that firearm by the gov't, I bought it legally using my own funds. Welfare is simply a monitary reward for failure, taken involuntarily from the paychecks of some and given to others on a recurring basis. When I, as a fellow citizen, am expected to pay my own rent, buy my own food and to pay taxes (if I make "too much") then why should another, non-disabled citizen have a "right" to get that given to them? I do not consider it unreasonable for those requesting public assistance, to have hoops to jump through in order to show a genuine attempt to obey the laws and to make an effort to get their act together. Gun rights and welfare rights are not nearly the same; unless you think that ALL should be given welfare or that the poor should be given guns. ;)

Dude YOU brought the firearm thing into this, don't complain about me using it back. :doh

NOW your true opinion comes out. You see assistance as rewarding failure. Not a helping hand, even though, heaven forbid you should ever need it yourself.

Making them jump through hoops, again very telling, how about a realistic program to educate and elevate, but then again if we did that they just might compete with you or yours for those jobs that pay well enough to not need assistance.

Some may never rise up out of poverty, but do you have any idea what fraction of the programs deal with them? Many detractors lump the free lunch family in with the whole enchilada family.
 
That is an apples to cinder blocks comparison. I was not awarded that firearm by the gov't, I bought it legally using my own funds. Welfare is simply a monitary reward for failure, taken involuntarily from the paychecks of some and given to others on a recurring basis. When I, as a fellow citizen, am expected to pay my own rent, buy my own food and to pay taxes (if I make "too much") then why should another, non-disabled citizen have a "right" to get that given to them? I do not consider it unreasonable for those requesting public assistance, to have hoops to jump through in order to show a genuine attempt to obey the laws and to make an effort to get their act together. Gun rights and welfare rights are not nearly the same; unless you think that ALL should be given welfare or that the poor should be given guns. ;)

Exactly. On a constitutional basis, there is no "right to welfare."

As far as I'm concerned, when you forgo the resonsibility of living on your own two feet and voluntarily make yourself a burden to the state and society in general, you should also forgo most of the rights which apply to normal citizens as well. If you want to get technical about it, this is pretty much exactly what enlistment in the military already does, so there is nothing even remotely "unconstitutional" about the idea.

It would actually seem to be a fair trade, all things considered.

The goal should be to make the "social safety net" an unpleasant experience which drives people to better themselves and their financial situation by trying to escape its confines, not to make it so comfortable that people simply wallow there as an alternative to gainful employment, draining vital public coffers the whole time.

Beyond the moral question it carries a cost much higher than the benefit. A perfect example of ideology trumping actual results. The reasoning ranged from some "tough love" for drug abusers to protecting tax payers. Multiple arguments thrown out hoping for something to stick, which typically seems to be the case with blowhard ideologues. All you have to do is visit the about the thread on the Voting Rights case being held by the Supreme Court. It ranges from "it's a useless measure"....to some weird argument which is essentially arguing that there's a need to expand it because discrimination happens outside the areas covered by the law??

You're right. The status quo seems to be working out quite nicely. There's no reason to change anything....
 
Last edited:
You're right. The status quo seems to be working out quite nicely. There's no reason to change anything....

I'm not sure what is being solved by testing welfare applicants for drug use. I'm not sure how that is any in way a cause for our current problems? Welfare applicants on drugs crashed the economy which has resulted in higher unemployment, lower revenues, and higher costs due to economic stabilizers kicking in? I guess you're Borat picture doesn't seem to answer that question.
 
I'm not sure what is being solved by testing welfare applicants for drug use. I'm not sure how that is any in way a cause for our current problems? Welfare applicants on drugs crashed the economy which has resulted in higher unemployment, lower revenues, and higher costs due to economic stabilizers kicking in? I guess you're Borat picture doesn't seem to answer that question.

Welfare costs have done nothing but balloon for the last 50 years and are growing larger every day. Welfare has even become a staple of everyday lifestyle for many minority groups precisely because it initially has a much higher cost to benefit ratio than gainful employment.

The Unsustainable Growth of Welfare

Given the already massively unsustainable nature of our national debt, it would seem to be a truism that major reform is necessary. Spending on welfare is one of the areas most in need of such fundamental restructuring.

Drug testing would make an excellent first step.
 
Welfare costs have done nothing but balloon for the last 50 years and are growing larger every day. Welfare has even become a staple of everyday lifestyle for many minority groups precisely because it initially has a much higher cost to benefit ratio than gainful employment.

The Unsustainable Growth of Welfare

Given the already massively unsustainable nature of our national debt, it would seem to be a truism that major reform is necessary. Spending on welfare is one of the areas most in need of such fundamental restructuring.

Drug testing would make an excellent first step.

White people are just as much into welfare income and free welfare supplemental income.
 
Dude YOU brought the firearm thing into this, don't complain about me using it back. :doh

NOW your true opinion comes out. You see assistance as rewarding failure. Not a helping hand, even though, heaven forbid you should ever need it yourself.

Making them jump through hoops, again very telling, how about a realistic program to educate and elevate, but then again if we did that they just might compete with you or yours for those jobs that pay well enough to not need assistance.

Some may never rise up out of poverty, but do you have any idea what fraction of the programs deal with them? Many detractors lump the free lunch family in with the whole enchilada family.

OK using YOUR criteria, alone, yet us examine the "welfare" (in all of its many forms) situation. What, other than economic failure, is used as a qualification for "welfare" benefits? Are not all of us offered a free K-12 public education? I propose denying all public assistance to those lacking a HS education, just as we willfully deny that public assistance to those that do not have dependent children. Simply because I do not make an income over the federal poverty line, I am not "entitled" to welfare (or even Medicaid) unless I have dependent children. We now have a system that encourages having children to "qualify" for welfare, yet do not require taking advantage of the free public education offered; currently 42% of those on welfare lack a HS education, while 90% are single mothers.
 
White people are just as much into welfare income and free welfare supplemental income.

Of course. I only brought it up because it happens to be something I have personal experience with.

I spent four years assigned to a Transportation unit in Charleston that was roughly 80% African American. Roughly 9 out of 10 of the young women there were single mothers and on welfare (in addition to their military benefits).

All of them sported expensive new phones. They would also sit around talking about "baby daddies" and exchanging food stamps for sexy shoes and club clothing as if it were the most normal thing in the world.
 
Last edited:
Welfare costs have done nothing but balloon for the last 50 years and are growing larger every day. Welfare has even become a staple of everyday lifestyle for many minority groups precisely because it initially has a much higher cost to benefit ratio than gainful employment.

The Unsustainable Growth of Welfare

Given the already massively unsustainable nature of our national debt, it would seem to be a truism that major reform is necessary. Spending on welfare is one of the areas most in need of such fundamental restructuring.

Drug testing would make an excellent first step.

I'm not sure why minority groups are singled out. Poverty rates for minority groups pretty much mirror trends by whites. At a higher level but that's an intergenerational poverty problem.

I also don't agree with your idea that spending to alleviate poverty is the problem. To me it's a problem but not the problem. The problem in my view is that higher wage jobs have been replaced by lower wage jobs. I'm not sure how pulling the rug under individuals will do anything beyond make poverty a more painful experience.
 
OK using YOUR criteria, alone, yet us examine the "welfare" (in all of its many forms) situation. What, other than economic failure, is used as a qualification for "welfare" benefits? Are not all of us offered a free K-12 public education? I propose denying all public assistance to those lacking a HS education, just as we willfully deny that public assistance to those that do not have dependent children. Simply because I do not make an income over the federal poverty line, I am not "entitled" to welfare (or even Medicaid) unless I have dependent children. We now have a system that encourages having children to "qualify" for welfare, yet do not require taking advantage of the free public education offered; currently 42% of those on welfare lack a HS education, while 90% are single mothers.

Again you use a very self centered stance on this... because YOU can't get assistance you have a complaint. I can't get the same as you, but I don't begrudge others getting help.

When you say 'welfare' and the 92% you don't mean ALL forms, you mean the full monty. Millions of working families get food stamps, help in school lunches and if ya REALLY want to whine about what 'they' get try the tax gift they get for kids, and that is above the regular tax credit, it is a gift for having kids!
 
Curious as to why drug (ab)use is an approved no-no for gun ownership, and for parole/probation (even for non-drug related crimes) yet just peachy for getting welfare cash. While drug/alcohol addiction/abuse is not a major cause of poverty it certainly hinders one's chances of getting out of it. Attempts to bar any restrictions to getting "automatic" public assistance are not wise public policy. I would insist upon a HS education, the presentation of a personal improvement plan and requiring strict adherence to that plan. I have no real objection to an ocassional helping hand, but would prefer it to be via privately funded charity, but see no reason for all carrot and no stick. We have had a "war on poverty" since the 1960s, and have spent trillions fighting it, yet are stuck with 15% of the US population still so classified. To assert that the current wefare (in all of its many forms) programs are working simply defies common sense.

I thought libertarians were for legalization of drugs?
 
Back
Top Bottom