• 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.

Article is here.

But bankers aren't on welfare.
 
The hypocrisy of a libertarian calling for drug testing.

I'm all for legalization of prime rib and lobster too. I don't want my tax money going there either.

Nice strawman. Try again, perhaps?
 
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.

Article is here.

you're probably 100 percent correct. But money that is force-ably being taken from taxpayers to give to others with no work or anything else required, peeing in a cup seems very reasonable to obtain free money.
 
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 already answered this question for Joko. I know that there are plenty of whites on welfare. I simply happen to have personal experience with the "baby momma" culture, so I tend to make reference to it often.

However, even going by the statistics, it is worth pointing out that the African American welfare rate is more than two and a half times the white welfare rate, simply due to the fact that they make up a sigificantly smaller portion of the population than whites, yet still account for almost 40% of total welfare expenditures.

There is also the following to account for:

72% of Black Children Are Raised in Single Parent Homes

Considering that single mothers are the greatest force driving welfare expenditures in today's economy, I would think that these numbers more than speak for themselves.

I also don't agree with your idea that spending to alleviate poverty is the problem.

I never said that it was "the" problem. Military expenditures, medicare, and medicaid play major roles as well. However, the simple fact of the matter is that we're never going to make any progress so long as the Left not only remains reflexively opposed to any kind of domestic spending reform, but actually insists on adding more new and equally useless programs (i.e. Obamacare) to our (nonexistent) budget each year.

Cuts are supposed to hurt. It's time to man up and deal with what we've had coming for the better part of half a century.

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.

Higher wage jobs are unsustainable from an economic standpoint. You don't pay double what a job is actually worth on general principle alone.

There is absolutely no reason why lower income earners cannot get by, and even thrive, on market determined wages.

I'm not sure how pulling the rug under individuals will do anything beyond make poverty a more painful experience.

Poverty should be a painful experience, and that's the whole point. What possible incentive do you have to work your way up if everything's being artificially kept just fine and dandy at the bottom?

Government dependents are living in "lala land" and the whole thing's getting ready to come crashing down around their heads. They had best start learning to fend for themselves sooner rather than later.
 
Last edited:
I'm all for legalization of prime rib and lobster too. I don't want my tax money going there either.

Nice strawman. Try again, perhaps?


:lamo Prime rib and lobster are already legal but nice try to hide the hypocrisy!
 
The drug testing program costs more than it saves, which to me makes the entire thing a non-starter. Why even talk about it? It doesn't work.
 
you're probably 100 percent correct. But money that is force-ably being taken from taxpayers to give to others with no work or anything else required, peeing in a cup seems very reasonable to obtain free money.

People who have jobs are also periodically asked to take drug tests. What is the problem with having the same requirement for those receiving money from those same taxpayers? Sheesh! :( And I don't care what color they are, so don't try to make it a racist thing...that's a handy catch phrase used too often these days! If it applies to anyone receiving benefits, it's fair!
 
Have you personally ever done this to pass a drug test?

I have used various methods to pass drug tests. The most effective is using clean urine. If they use a blood test, it then becomes very tricky.
 
If that's not what he meant to say, he can certainly correct himself. He's a big boy!

You're hopeless. I was hoping that my chance to make a smartass comment wouldn't fly over your head. That's fine. Be in the dark.

Damn hyper-libs. They are immune to any sort of sense.
 
People who have jobs are also periodically asked to take drug tests. What is the problem with having the same requirement for those receiving money from those same taxpayers? Sheesh! :( And I don't care what color they are, so don't try to make it a racist thing...that's a handy catch phrase used too often these days! If it applies to anyone receiving benefits, it's fair!

The U.S. is one of the only industrialized countries that uses prior drug screening for employment. Sad really.
 
I fully support drug screening aid recipients and public officials. Drug screens should be more widely utilized and actions enforced against those that test positive for illegal drugs.
 
The U.S. is one of the only industrialized countries that uses prior drug screening for employment. Sad really.

Just depends. A factory that used to be near me used it for drug and alcohol screening really and serious injuries dropped significantly. Random drug test is also random alcohol test.
 
The U.S. is one of the only industrialized countries that uses prior drug screening for employment. Sad really.

I'm going to assume that your comment was made tongue-in-cheek, so I agree it is very sad indeed! :) If you were serious, and your information is correct, it might explain how we seem to be hearing more and more about dangerous chemical substances, that are hazardous to health, being found in the products that are being shipped here from other countries. :scared:
 
You're hopeless. I was hoping that my chance to make a smartass comment wouldn't fly over your head. That's fine. Be in the dark.

Damn hyper-libs. They are immune to any sort of sense.


I always find it amusing that the far right think their unpopular views should apply to the majority of the country.
 
In return for what?

The Federal money they get from the gubmint. If bankers get handouts, they should be subject to the same rules as welfare recipients who get handouts. In the case of Congressmen, they aren't earning their pay, so that's a handout too.
 
I have used various methods to pass drug tests. The most effective is using clean urine. If they use a blood test, it then becomes very tricky.

I'd be willing to bet that the average drug or alcohol user can tell you down to the minute how long it takes to leave your system. So unless drug testing is done randomly, and not on a monthly appointment schedule, most would pass the testing... :naughty:
 
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.

That also turned out to be the case in Florida.
 
People who have jobs are also periodically asked to take drug tests. What is the problem with having the same requirement for those receiving money from those same taxpayers? Sheesh! :( And I don't care what color they are, so don't try to make it a racist thing...that's a handy catch phrase used too often these days! If it applies to anyone receiving benefits, it's fair!

As a military man I was required to pee in the cup all the time. No problem.
 
But bankers aren't on welfare.

Oh yes they are. They ran their banks into the ground, and got millions in government handouts to keep them from going broke. This IS welfare, and bankers are the biggest welfare queens of them all.
 
I fully support drug screening aid recipients and public officials. Drug screens should be more widely utilized and actions enforced against those that test positive for illegal drugs.

As long as aid recipients are not being singled out, and public officials are being held to the same standard, I have no problem with this. But you won't see public officials held to the same standard. Why? Because, as many scandals have shown, many of them DO abuse drugs and alcohol, and what's OK for the little guy isn't OK for them.
 
Back
Top Bottom