• 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

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.
"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."
Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.
Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state's congressional delegation issued a joint statement attacking the legislation, one calling it "downright unconstitutional."
"Governor Scott's new drug testing law is not only an affront to families in need and detrimental to our nation's ongoing economic recovery, it is downright unconstitutional," said Rep. Alcee Hastings. "If Governor Scott wants to drug test recipients of TANF benefits, where does he draw the line? Are families receiving Medicaid, state emergency relief, or educational grants and loans next?"

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure - CNN.com


We can only hope Rep. Hastings, that is the next step.
 
Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.

Oh.

So Floriduh has found a new way to subsidize pimps?

If they fail the drug test, they shouldn't get any money. Period. And, because the applicant has now been proven to be an unfit parent, their children should be placed in foster care until the parent has proven her fitness by a success completion of drug rehab and a job.
 
Last edited:
How is it unconstitutional?
 
Pathetic partisan piece of legislation. Funny how those people and employees of companies that get government handouts are not forced to drug testing... oh yea, forgot, they are also contributors to this hack job of a governor so they are exempt..
 
Pathetic partisan piece of legislation. Funny how those people and employees of companies that get government handouts are not forced to drug testing... oh yea, forgot, they are also contributors to this hack job of a governor so they are exempt..

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how it causes any harm by requiring that people who are surviving SOLELY off of government handouts be able to prove that they are drug free.
 
Beggers can't be choosers. Good piece of legislation, it greatly angers me when people are always complaining about how times are so hard, even though they are receving government welfare, and still find the financial accountability to buy drugs, beer, cigs, etc.
 
Beggers can't be choosers. Good piece of legislation, it greatly angers me when people are always complaining about how times are so hard, even though they are receving government welfare, and still find the financial accountability to buy drugs, beer, cigs, etc.

Oh yeah, pay for $250 in groceries with food stamps, then throw down $60 on a carton of cigs and $20 on a case of beer. That's responsibility right there.
 
Pathetic partisan piece of legislation. Funny how those people and employees of companies that get government handouts are not forced to drug testing... oh yea, forgot, they are also contributors to this hack job of a governor so they are exempt..

I don't know about Spain, but pretty much every major corporation and even many small companies require you to pass a drug screen before you can be offered a position.
 
Oh yeah, pay for $250 in groceries with food stamps, then throw down $60 on a carton of cigs and $20 on a case of beer. That's responsibility right there.
Gotta have make dip of skoal, and ice cold keystone to relieve my stress mate

:doh
 
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how it causes any harm by requiring that people who are surviving SOLELY off of government handouts be able to prove that they are drug free.

No harm at all if it was not so ****ing selective. We have seen it through history.. Jews and the yellow star of David, Blacks in black only areas like toilets and back of buses, and the targeted Italian laws against the Romani. Very selective legislation sucks donkey balls and is the start of a slippery road that leads down to dictatorship and worse. In this case it is welfare recipients, which in most cases vote for the other guy. And funny enough, if they loose their government money, then they most likely very quickly become homeless or even more criminal which funny enough means they cant vote... awwwww.

And I have no problem what so ever that anyone getting a government handout.. tax break, subsidy and so on, should be required to do certain things, and that can include drug testing. I really want every Exxon employee in the US to undergo government mandated drug testing every 6 months if Exxon is to get those billions in subsidies and tax breaks on top of their non payment of taxes.. Just one drugged up employee, and bye bye all those perks I say.
 
I don't know about Spain, but pretty much every major corporation and even many small companies require you to pass a drug screen before you can be offered a position.

Not what I am saying... I am saying that ALL employees of any company that receives any money from the government, either directly or via tax breaks or subsidies, should be required to have yearly if not every 6 months mandatory drug testing to be able to receive said money.
 
No harm at all if it was not so ****ing selective. We have seen it through history.. Jews and the yellow star of David, Blacks in black only areas like toilets and back of buses, and the targeted Italian laws against the Romani. Very selective legislation sucks donkey balls and is the start of a slippery road that leads down to dictatorship and worse. In this case it is welfare recipients, which in most cases vote for the other guy. And funny enough, if they loose their government money, then they most likely very quickly become homeless or even more criminal which funny enough means they cant vote... awwwww.

And I have no problem what so ever that anyone getting a government handout.. tax break, subsidy and so on, should be required to do certain things, and that can include drug testing. I really want every Exxon employee in the US to undergo government mandated drug testing every 6 months if Exxon is to get those billions in subsidies and tax breaks on top of their non payment of taxes.. Just one drugged up employee, and bye bye all those perks I say.

Selective? EVERY person applying for welfare in Florida will have to submit to a drug test. Corporations are different. How are we supposed to test them? Make every employee pee in a cup? Further, we shouldn't be providing welfare to corporations in the first place. I've said often that I am against subsidies, too. But I see absolutely no problem with this legislation on it's own. I

n Texas and Michigan I can tell you first hand that welfare recipients are more likely to use drugs or abuse alcohol than their non-welfare counterparts. Having lived inside of the welfare cultures for quite some time I've seen those checks go straight to the dealer in exchange for some blow...and the kids (the ones everybody screams that we need to help) continue to suffer.

The only other solution as I see it is to distribute the money to specific accounts (i.e. x-amount to rent, x-amount to electricity) and give the recipient no rights over how the money is spent, which many would find more severe, and which would ultimately cost more money in the long run.

I have to pass a drug test with almost every employer I've ever worked for, which means a welfare recipient looking for work would as well. If we don't hold them to the same level of accountability as an employer would, how do we expect them to ever fall in line with those expectations and become productive? If we let them skate along with no obligation or responsibility what good are we really doing them?
 
No harm at all if it was not so ****ing selective. We have seen it through history.. Jews and the yellow star of David, Blacks in black only areas like toilets and back of buses, and the targeted Italian laws against the Romani. Very selective legislation sucks donkey balls and is the start of a slippery road that leads down to dictatorship and worse. In this case it is welfare recipients, which in most cases vote for the other guy. And funny enough, if they loose their government money, then they most likely very quickly become homeless or even more criminal which funny enough means they cant vote... awwwww.

And I have no problem what so ever that anyone getting a government handout.. tax break, subsidy and so on, should be required to do certain things, and that can include drug testing. I really want every Exxon employee in the US to undergo government mandated drug testing every 6 months if Exxon is to get those billions in subsidies and tax breaks on top of their non payment of taxes.. Just one drugged up employee, and bye bye all those perks I say.

I'd rather Exxon simply not get those billions in subsidies. However, if they continue getting subsidies, I don't see why the entire corporation of Exxon should suffer because some employee happened to smoke some pot and fail a drug test.
 
No harm at all if it was not so ****ing selective. We have seen it through history.. Jews and the yellow star of David, Blacks in black only areas like toilets and back of buses, and the targeted Italian laws against the Romani. Very selective legislation sucks donkey balls and is the start of a slippery road that leads down to dictatorship and worse. In this case it is welfare recipients, which in most cases vote for the other guy. And funny enough, if they loose their government money, then they most likely very quickly become homeless or even more criminal which funny enough means they cant vote... awwwww.

Yeah. First it's making sure the government isn't subsidizing drug habits...next thing you know we'll put everyone below the poverty line into camps. :2rofll:
 
Pathetic partisan piece of legislation. Funny how those people and employees of companies that get government handouts are not forced to drug testing... oh yea, forgot, they are also contributors to this hack job of a governor so they are exempt..

You missed the point. The government is not going to reward people that can't get a job because they won't give up drugs. Why should the people pay for drug users life styles if it is their own damn fault they can't find a job?
 
No harm at all if it was not so ****ing selective. We have seen it through history.. Jews and the yellow star of David, Blacks in black only areas like toilets and back of buses, and the targeted Italian laws against the Romani. Very selective legislation sucks donkey balls and is the start of a slippery road that leads down to dictatorship and worse. In this case it is welfare recipients, which in most cases vote for the other guy. And funny enough, if they loose their government money, then they most likely very quickly become homeless or even more criminal which funny enough means they cant vote... awwwww.

And I have no problem what so ever that anyone getting a government handout.. tax break, subsidy and so on, should be required to do certain things, and that can include drug testing. I really want every Exxon employee in the US to undergo government mandated drug testing every 6 months if Exxon is to get those billions in subsidies and tax breaks on top of their non payment of taxes.. Just one drugged up employee, and bye bye all those perks I say.

Godwin Alert!!!!!!

:alert
 
Selective? EVERY person applying for welfare in Florida will have to submit to a drug test. Corporations are different. How are we supposed to test them? Make every employee pee in a cup? Further, we shouldn't be providing welfare to corporations in the first place. I've said often that I am against subsidies, too. But I see absolutely no problem with this legislation on it's own.

Yes it is selective. And yes you should not provide welfare to corporations, but you do and have to accept that. As for testing them... easy, take part of the welfare check and hire a company to come and test everyone. Not as hard as you think.... after all you want to do exactly the same with people on welfare and that is no different... it is a medium to large corporation size and far more spread out.

In Texas and Michigan I can tell you first hand that welfare recipients are more likely to use drugs or abuse alcohol than their non-welfare counterparts.

Doubtful. There are far far more non-welfare people who have the cash to buy drugs. So in total numbers the non-welfare people have by a country mile. And even in % of the population group they might even have it also.

Having lived inside of the welfare cultures for quite some time I've seen those checks go straight to the dealer in exchange for some blow...and the kids (the ones everybody screams that we need to help) continue to suffer.

Well that is another matter.. Do you really think that the druggies will give up their habit just because you think it is a good idea to stop paying them welfare? Do you not think that crime will start to skyrocket as these former welfare persons now go to crime (or even more crime) and that in turn fills your overfull prisons even more up? How about trying to help these people out of a life of drugs instead of just tossing them to the side like yesterdays fast food trash?

The only other solution as I see it is to distribute the money to specific accounts (i.e. x-amount to rent, x-amount to electricity) and give the recipient no rights over how the money is spent, which many would find more severe, and which would ultimately cost more money in the long run.

So it is more expensive now to pay for rent and electricity for welfare people than paying for a prison cell with food and water for said person? Who you gonna let out of the prisons to be able fit in the new crop of convicted criminals? Bernie Madoff, some terrorist or drug dealer.. how about a few rapists and child molesters? Or you gonna spend a 10s of billions in building new prisons to harbour them? Why not just make Alaska into one big prison camp? Would be much cheaper, since it would be Canada and Russia that had to take on most of the security... or maybe your colony Puerto Rico? Add a few tropical diseases and no healthcare and watch the "problem go away" fast!

I have to pass a drug test with almost every employer I've ever worked for, which means a welfare recipient looking for work would as well. If we don't hold them to the same level of accountability as an employer would, how do we expect them to ever fall in line with those expectations and become productive? If we let them skate along with no obligation or responsibility what good are we really doing them?

I dont disagree at all. But just cutting them off and throwing them in the street is selective partisan ideology. And I stand by my comments that all persons and companies who get any form of government grant/money/tax break/subsidy should be required to have drug tests. There are far more druggies outside the "welfare" system than there are in.. in total numbers.
 
No harm at all if it was not so ****ing selective. We have seen it through history.. Jews and the yellow star of David, Blacks in black only areas like toilets and back of buses, and the targeted Italian laws against the Romani. Very selective legislation sucks donkey balls and is the start of a slippery road that leads down to dictatorship and worse. In this case it is welfare recipients, which in most cases vote for the other guy. And funny enough, if they loose their government money, then they most likely very quickly become homeless or even more criminal which funny enough means they cant vote... awwwww.

And I have no problem what so ever that anyone getting a government handout.. tax break, subsidy and so on, should be required to do certain things, and that can include drug testing. I really want every Exxon employee in the US to undergo government mandated drug testing every 6 months if Exxon is to get those billions in subsidies and tax breaks on top of their non payment of taxes.. Just one drugged up employee, and bye bye all those perks I say.

They do it more often than that, actually--pre-employment drug screens, quarterly random drug screens, post accident drug screens. Yeah, welcome to the real world.

And, one drugged up employee means buh-bye to that employee.
 
Yes it is selective. And yes you should not provide welfare to corporations, but you do and have to accept that. As for testing them... easy, take part of the welfare check and hire a company to come and test everyone. Not as hard as you think.... after all you want to do exactly the same with people on welfare and that is no different... it is a medium to large corporation size and far more spread out.



Doubtful. There are far far more non-welfare people who have the cash to buy drugs. So in total numbers the non-welfare people have by a country mile. And even in % of the population group they might even have it also.



Well that is another matter.. Do you really think that the druggies will give up their habit just because you think it is a good idea to stop paying them welfare? Do you not think that crime will start to skyrocket as these former welfare persons now go to crime (or even more crime) and that in turn fills your overfull prisons even more up? How about trying to help these people out of a life of drugs instead of just tossing them to the side like yesterdays fast food trash?



So it is more expensive now to pay for rent and electricity for welfare people than paying for a prison cell with food and water for said person? Who you gonna let out of the prisons to be able fit in the new crop of convicted criminals? Bernie Madoff, some terrorist or drug dealer.. how about a few rapists and child molesters? Or you gonna spend a 10s of billions in building new prisons to harbour them? Why not just make Alaska into one big prison camp? Would be much cheaper, since it would be Canada and Russia that had to take on most of the security... or maybe your colony Puerto Rico? Add a few tropical diseases and no healthcare and watch the "problem go away" fast!



I dont disagree at all. But just cutting them off and throwing them in the street is selective partisan ideology. And I stand by my comments that all persons and companies who get any form of government grant/money/tax break/subsidy should be required to have drug tests. There are far more druggies outside the "welfare" system than there are in.. in total numbers.

It's my money. So, I don't want them to spend my money on drugs. It's a part of my right. You know, all that, "taxation" and, "representation", thing.

Too bad you're not an American. You might actually get it.
 
It's my money. .


It is not your money it is your employers money. And if they told you to stand on your head while reciting the alphabet and piss in a cup would you while scratching your tummy?
 
It is not your money it is your employers money. And if they told you to stand on your head while reciting the alphabet and piss in a cup would you while scratching your tummy?

I was talking about the tax dollars used to pay these hoople-heads their welfare. That, is for goddamn sure, my money and I say that the hoople-heads shouldn't be able to use it to buy a crack rock and if they do, they get cut off.
 
I was talking about the tax dollars used to pay these hoople-heads their welfare. That, is for goddamn sure, my money and I say that the hoople-heads shouldn't be able to use it to buy a crack rock and if they do, they get cut off.

You would rather your tax dollars are spent to imprison the crack head than to give the crack head treatment?
 
You would rather your tax dollars are spent to imprison the crack head than to give the crack head treatment?

If those were my only two choices, then yes, I would rather that person go to jail. I don't believe that my taxes should be used to reward bad behavior. I would rather my money be used to punish bad behavior. Ultimately, we would have less bad behavior.
 
Back
Top Bottom