• 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

Mayor Snorkum said:
Were's the downside?
Click to expand...

People suffer and die.

A person's worth is not their productivity. If that were the case, why no kill of the elderly, the mentally ill, the disabled, and so forth?
 
CriticalThought said:
Yes, they are criminalized, and I would love it if the government would decriminalize them. Continue to regulate them but use fines and taxes.
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that they should be legalized altogether, except for the ones that make you violent like meth and PCP. If people want to **** up their life doing heroin, that's their business. The government can tax it, just like they do for tobacco, and everyone wins (except the drug lords).
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
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?
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that it's a government program designed to kill people, no downside. Are you fine with a government program designed to kill people?
 
CriticalThought said:
People suffer and die.
Click to expand...

That's not a "downside", that's called "welcome to the real world".

FEWER people suffer under the Mayor's program, and, eventually, in the long term, fewer die. Think of it as evolution in action.

A person's worth is not their productivity. If that were the case, why no kill of the elderly, the mentally ill, the disabled, and so forth?
Click to expand...

An addict's worth is non-existent. Think of it as voluntary culling. Those addicts strong enough to realizethe danger will seek help to desist. Those lacking the strength to resist will succumb to the lure and voluntarily erase his burden on the people.

Greatest good for the greatest number, remember?

And, do you object to living in a free society?

The Mayor believes the society should not be so restrictive. MYOB and FITW, you know?
 
Damn it, I've had enough. There is NOTHING wrong with this bill. Absolutely nothing. Here..as a Floridian, I feel compelled to provide you with this.

2011 Bill Summary - The Florida Senate

The bill creates s. 414.0652, F.S., requiring the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to perform a drug screening for temporary cash assistance applicants as a condition of eligibility. The bill provides the following:

DCF shall require a drug test consistent with s. 112.0455, F.S.

All applicants for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) shall be drug screened as a condition of eligibility to receive cash assistance benefits.

Applicants who test positive for controlled substances will be disqualified from receiving temporary cash assistance for 1 year, unless the individual chooses to seek substance abuse treatment. If the individual chooses to seek treatment, he or she can reapply for TANF funds within a 6-month time frame. This is a one-time option.

DCF must inform applicants who test positive of the ability to apply again one year from the date of the positive test, or within 6 months upon completion of a substance abuse program. Applicants who test positive again will be ineligible to receive TANF benefits for 3 years from the date of the second positive test.

If a parent tests positive for controlled substances, DCF may designate a “protective payee” to receive the cash assistance benefits on behalf of a dependent child. Alternatively, the parent may choose an immediate family member to receive benefits on behalf of the child or DCF may approve another individual to receive the benefits; a person so designated by the parent or approved by DCF also must undergo drug testing.

The cost of drug testing will be paid by the individual applicant.

DCF will be required to provide any individual who tests positive for controlled substances with information concerning drug abuse and treatment programs in the area in which he or she resides. The bill specifies that neither DCF nor the state is responsible for providing or paying for substance abuse treatment as part of screening under this section.

DCF is authorized to adopt rules as necessary to implement the law.
Click to expand...

This is the most compassionate drug-testing welfare bill that they could have possibly written, and every effort is made to make sure they still get their money. I'm sorry, but I can't intellectually respect you if you're bellyaching over something as simple and to-the-point as this law.

Not every welfare recipient is Nelson Mandela.
 
atrasicarius said:
Aside from the fact that it's a government program designed to kill people, no downside. Are you fine with a government program designed to kill people?
Click to expand...

But it isn't a government program designed to kill people. No person wishing to avoid dying will partake of the benefits. All persons partaking and yet smart enough to limit their consumption will not die.

Only people lacking the most basic self-control will fare hardly.

The DEA kills people.

Are you happy with that?

The DEA kills people who've committed no crime.

How about the BATF? You happy with that bit of government interdiction [in Waco] ?

Governments exist to use force.

The Mayor's plan contains not one erg of compulsion. No one not wishing the product is required to take it. No one taking the product is killed by the government.

Not one person dies who follows instructions. The instructions are to be posted above the door of every distribtion center:

NARCOTICS FREE HERE.
DO NOT TAKE NARCOTICS IF YOU WANT TO LIVE.

As a free society that is the full extent of the responsibility any adult has towards any other adult, and that include the responsibilities of the government to it's citizens.

What IS important is that the people who do not wish to take narcotics should not be forced to subsidize the lifestyles of those who take them. The non-user must not become the slave of the user.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
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?
Click to expand...

Things like that are what the government should be doing. What they shouldn't be doing is giving checks, cell phones and food stamps to drug addicts.
 
In Vino Veritas said:
It's just a saying, Rusty Trombone...good grief.

It's also a book by Thomas James Bass.

Do you understand the meaning?

The U.S. Government doesn't "recieve" money...it confiscates it.

And it does not do so from "The People", it does so from some people. In fact, less than half of the citizens.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Do not alter a member's username.
 
Risky Thicket said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then these people would not be affected.
 
This would be manged under the "CaptainCourtesy Ending The War On Drugs Plan". Some of you have read about this before. I will not go into the entirety of the plan, just the basics:

Current "illegal" drugs are legalized. All violations that would pertain to alcohol, apply, such as driving under the influence. Employers, of course, have the right to fire anyone who "works under the influence". All drugs are taxed by the government... similar to cigarettes. All tax monies go into a fund for substance abuse treatment. One of the flaws with Scott's plan, and one of the problems with addicts becoming clean is the cost of substance abuse treatment. A 30 day stay in a facility can cost upwards of $25,000... sometimes to start. If an addict wants treatment, they receive an evaluation to determine whether they would qualify under the government subsidy. Things like history (have they had failed treatment attempts), motivation, and perhaps their own financial ability would be assessed. If they qualify, the substance abuse fund will cover their treatment. Under this welfare policy, since these folks would be receive government money because of need, either they would agree to attend treatment (again, covered by the fund) or their benefit would be eliminated. If they have children, their children would have a "designate" who would manage their money.

This helps resolve two issues: the war on drugs and the problem with substance abuse.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
That's not a "downside", that's called "welcome to the real world".

FEWER people suffer under the Mayor's program, and, eventually, in the long term, fewer die. Think of it as evolution in action.
Click to expand...

Evolution is the adaptation of species to their environment over several generations. You are referring to natural selection, which even in this case is poorly argued since your program would do little to decrease the reproductive capabilities of drug abusers. At best, you are arguing a Social Darwinist view that only those of merit should survive.

An addict's worth is non-existent. Think of it as voluntary culling. Those addicts strong enough to realizethe danger will seek help to desist. Those lacking the strength to resist will succumb to the lure and voluntarily erase his burden on the people.
Click to expand...

People make poor choices. People can also recover from poor choices given the right opportunities. To realize this is to be kind. Kindness is the act of helping people help themselves. Kindness is also a trait that takes a lifetime to develop and not one you seemed to have valued. Humans are social animals and we are inherently empathetic. We evolved to want to help our fellow tribe members survive and prosper so that we could look out for one another. A cohesive tribe is a tribe that survives and a divided tribe is a tribe that falls. Humans are not an individual animal. We cannot survive as isolated individuals. We need each other. We support each other. That is what it means to be human. If you cast that aside, then you are little more than an animal hoarding away until you die.

There is no such thing as a free society because we all have our obligations. Our obligations to our families, to our communities, to our friends, to our colleagues, and so forth. Who we are is shaped by how we fulfill those obligations.
 
Last edited:
It's nice that they are giving hardcore alcoholics a pass. I guess they are telling welfare recipients to switch to fortified wine.
 
Mickey Shane said:
It's nice that they are giving hardcore alcoholics a pass. I guess they are telling welfare recipients to switch to fortified wine.
Click to expand...

That has been my thinking on this as well. I don't necessarily have a problem with making sure welfare money is used strictly for necessities, but be consistent about it. No alcohol, no tobacco at the least if we are going to be banning drug use. No plasma TV's, no trips to the amusement park, no expensive sets of rims, and so on would help for consistency as well.
 
I'm going to add two responses to this debate from my friends,

More than 95% of people who would receive the aid have never had a drug problem in their lives, but they are being made to take a drug test JUST because they are poor which is beyond ridiculous. If you're going to use this reasoning then why don't we drug test all college students before they receive financial aid so we can make sure we're not funding their drug habits with our federal dollars in scholarship disbursements. Moreover most of the people receiving the aid make $250 or less a month, and if the drug test costs $70 or even $10 (because the bill is not clear what drugs will be tested for) then even that can be too much when they have to pay rent and put food on the table.
Click to expand...

It's actually 97%.

And by the logic that some of your Facebook friends, the government should come and inspect your home before your child can go to public school. Why aren't we ONLY testing the people who actually HAVE a history of drugs? Why are we testing EVERYONE?

So much for innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

I will withhold my comments on these two statements until I hear a little about what you all say. I have not responded to them as I wish to remain friends with them.

Republicans drive me crazy sometimes. They trumpet this "small government" crap all the time yet they're the ones who push policies like this, policies like the PATRIOT Act, policies that bring Big Brother to our doorstep and actually into our homes.


marduc said:
That has been my thinking on this as well. I don't necessarily have a problem with making sure welfare money is used strictly for necessities, but be consistent about it. No alcohol, no tobacco at the least if we are going to be banning drug use. No plasma TV's, no trips to the amusement park, no expensive sets of rims, and so on would help for consistency as well.
Click to expand...

I agree but it would take a MASSIVE amount of people to make sure that is not happening. I really don't think that too much of that is going on though, or am I just being an optimist? What percentage of people do you all think are abusing the money?
 
Risky Thicket said:
The idea is also discriminatory against poor people.
Click to expand...

Receiving welfare is a voluntary process, so your point above is moot. If you are a poor person who doesn't wish to be drug tested, don't apply for AFDC.

I don't know if you know what AFDC stands for, but it isn't for generalized welfare. It's "Aid for Dependent Children." The money isn't to support women who can't or won't work, it's to support the children and infants who are dependent on those adults. The money should be directed to the wellbeing of the children, and not to crack, meth, mj, or oxycontin.

I've worked with a lot of families over the years, both in poor rural areas and in poor urban areas. You'd be surprised how often AFDC is used to support mom's drug/alcohol/cigarette habit. Let's not discriminate. The funds also shouldn't be paying for cigarettes and booze, so we should probably test for those substances, as well.

In my opinion, this doesn't go far enough. Adults who are receiving AFDC should be required to participate in parent/teacher conferences at school, volunteer at the local school, and complete classes in budgeting/finance, food preparation, and employment readiness. Their children should maintain a minimum attendance level (I'd suggest 90%, since after all, we are paying mom to stay home and raise children, so getting them to school should be no problem).

AFDC should be a temporary measure and should be designed to have a longterm impact on poverty. I have zero problems with the war on poverty, but the implementation of poverty-alleviating measures is seriously flawed and has actually become an enabler for many lifestyle choices that are extremely detrimental to children. If we wanted to end poverty, we would work harder on the roots of poverty, which include lack of educational skills or achievement, poor financial choices, poor healty/dietary choices, and lack of employability.

AFDC was never designed to be a lifestyle, but many of the individuals who are longterm recipients were once teen parents and are functionally illiterate. Their employment options are limited and many are trapped in cycles of drug/alcohol dependency, which makes them even less employable.

That money goes out to families to take care of children, but in many cases, it is misused. And, that's a damned shame.
 
Last edited:
lovetosing4678 said:
I agree but it would take a MASSIVE amount of people to make sure that is not happening. I really don't think that too much of that is going on though, or am I just being an optimist? What percentage of people do you all think are abusing the money?
Click to expand...

Would it be that hard to issue a plastic card or set up a welfare account that could only be used for food, housing expenses, transportation costs, and medical treatment?

Is there a potential for abuse, always and in all things, but not compared to just sending a check in the mail which can then be converted to cash with ease. This way welfare money can be used strictly to insure an individuals or a family's welfare. If they have other money that they earn, there is no way to really control how that gets spent, other than enforcing income reporting measures and insuring that the amount of assistance available is tied to that (ideally on a month by month basis). This leaves money under the table, side jobs, illegal income ect. this we cannot control all that much, but controlling where the welfare money goes, and the limit of money according to legitimate reported income would account for the majority of recipients, and take care of a lions share of waste and inappropriate allocation of funds.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but it seems that you may have used a debilitating cocktail of drugs before you stumbled upon your current position, such that it is. Why do I think that you must be a TSA ball handler who works at the airport in Baton Rouge groping thousands upon thousands to catch one. That's the new America, isn't it? Guilty until proven innocent. That's growth industry, Big Brother. You obviously like fascism and want to see more of your money going to support state paranoia.
 
marduc said:
Would it be that hard to issue a plastic card or set up a welfare account that could only be used for food, housing expenses, transportation costs, and medical treatment?

Is there a potential for abuse, always and in all things, but not compared to just sending a check in the mail which can then be converted to cash with ease. This way welfare money can be used strictly to insure an individuals or a family's welfare. If they have other money that they earn, there is no way to really control how that gets spent, other than enforcing income reporting measures and insuring that the amount of assistance available is tied to that (ideally on a month by month basis). This leaves money under the table, side jobs, illegal income ect. this we cannot control all that much, but controlling where the welfare money goes, and the limit of money according to legitimate reported income would account for the majority of recipients, and take care of a lions share of waste and inappropriate allocation of funds.
Click to expand...

That honestly does sound like a good idea, but how do you ensure that it is only being used for food, transportation etc. You can buy almost anything at Walmart which is where most poor people buy their groceries. How do you discern what part of purchases is food and what part is the flat screen TV? Limit the amount they can spend at one time? The others are easier to see that it is being used properly but still somewhat hard. Otherwise sounds like a great plan, why don't we do it?
 
CriticalThought said:
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. 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.

I'm not saying that this was a good or bad move, simply pointing out the reality of where this is going. Every action in the war on drugs ends with more people in prison and more tax dollar money going to pay for it.

Also, Scott is going to profit off this immensely. Drug tests are not free. My employer paid $30 for my last one. They are also dehumanizing. Can you imagine having someone watch you take piss just so you could get money for food?
Click to expand...

This is quite literally the most absurd argument I've ever heard on this board.

So what you're telling me is that, by threat of these people becoming criminals, the taxpayer should subsidize their drug habit? What kind of convoluted logic is that? Why stop at drugs? Why not alcohol? If you deprive a drunk of his wine money, will he turn to crime? Well, if either of the above cases turns to crime, then they will be locked up. It will be a choice they have to make.

Either way though, the monetary burden isn't on the taxpayer. I'd rather pay to keep them locked up than pay to keep them high on drugs. But that's just me.
 
lovetosing4678 said:
That honestly does sound like a good idea, but how do you ensure that it is only being used for food, transportation etc. You can buy almost anything at Walmart which is where most poor people buy their groceries. How do you discern what part of purchases is food and what part is the flat screen TV? Limit the amount they can spend at one time? The others are easier to see that it is being used properly but still somewhat hard.
Click to expand...

That part is easy, it is just a matter of having entries in the store product database, similar to how taxed goods and non-taxed goods are accounted for. You go through checkout all your items get scanned, you have an amount of your purchase eligible to be charged to your welfare account based upon what goods were flagged as welfare eligible and which are not. You scan your card, those get paid for, then you have to come up with hundreds of dollars out of pocket to pay for that TV.

lovetosing4678 said:
Otherwise sounds like a great plan, why don't we do it?
Click to expand...

I forgot to run for office, and I just thought of it <shrug>
 
empireofreason said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't care about the drink. It's the toke that I care about. Drinking is legal. And "self-medicating" with an illegal substance is no excuse. There are plenty of other legal things that are available to "self-medicate". If of course you are using that term properly. If it is being used to just get away from reality then too bad.
 
CriticalThought said:
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:
Click to expand...
Interesting response... No wonder Libertarians never see the national stage.

apdst said:
So, I have to pay for the treatment, too? **** that ****!!
Click to expand...

I didn't know Liberals and Libertarians had so much in common. It must be the "progressive" thing.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
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.
Click to expand...

And this is where you people don't get it.

You've just upped the crime rate and incarceration rate in Florida.

You've just raised Florida's deficit by probably BILLIONS.

If they're going to jail, you're spending a ****-ton more than you were on Welfare.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059533976 said:
I didn't know Liberals and Libertarians had so much in common. It must be the "progressive" thing.
Click to expand...

Libertarians are generally socially liberal and economically fiscal. I personally would like to see drugs decriminalized but still regulated with fines and taxes. The fines and taxes would go to pay for treatment programs.

The progressive move would be to simply increase harder punishments on drug offenders. Progressive = increasing government interference in people's lives.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom