• 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

CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sure by economically fiscal you mean fiscally conservative.
 
I think this is great. It is a move in the right direction.

Do you think having crack addicted parents who spend the food stamps etc on drugs is any different? This is not going to harm children anymore then the parents already do.
 
What is amazing to me is that there are people on this thread - you all know who you are, and if you don't, we do - who immediately equate poverty with drug abuse. That is absurd. In Florida, 20.8% of people over 50 years old live below poverty. Some posters on this thread assume that the majority of those people are drug addicts. In Florida over 12% of the population of the people over 50 years old are unemployed. Of course that number does not include the people who have simply quit looking for work. Some posters here naively believe that anyone can work who want to work. Some posters here apparently believe that people over the age of 50 can easily find a job if they only wanted to work.

As often happens conservatives are either uninterested in facts or unable to understand them. Only "elitists" are interested in statistics. Most people who receive public assistance are not drug abusers. I would challenge Conservative to pony up with the facts to base her assertions.
 
My concern is that in the Obamation economy the number of people in need of help is astronomical and the tests will only add to cost problem that is already too high.

In the past year, some states have seen increases of 15% or more in their welfare caseloads, including Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Washington.
 
Risky Thicket said:
What is amazing to me is that there are people on this thread - you all know who you are, and if you don't, we do - who immediately equate poverty with drug abuse.
Click to expand...

From were I come from poverty means alcohol and drug abuse in many cases. No one here is speaking in absolutes.

Risky Thicket said:
That is absurd. In Florida, 20.8% of people over 50 years old live below poverty.
Click to expand...

Most of those are not receiving welfare. You are equating being poor with automatically receiving welfare.

Risky Thicket said:
Some posters on this thread assume that the majority of those people are drug addicts. In Florida over 12% of the population of the people over 50 years old are unemployed. Of course that number does not include the people who have simply quit looking for work. Some posters here naively believe that anyone can work who want to work. Some posters here apparently believe that people over the age of 50 can easily find a job if they only wanted to work.
Click to expand...

You are making bad assumptions based on your own prejudice. This leads to a flawed conclusion I have already covered.

Risky Thicket said:
As often happens conservatives are either uninterested in facts or unable to understand them. Only "elitists" are interested in statistics. Most people who receive public assistance are not drug abusers. I would challenge Conservative to pony up with the facts to base her assertions.
Click to expand...

Then most people would not have to worry, now would they?
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
My concern is that in the Obamation economy the number of people in need of help is astronomical and the tests will only add to cost problem that is already too high.

In the past year, some states have seen increases of 15% or more in their welfare caseloads, including Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Washington.
Click to expand...

And that is fine. Allot of unemployed are not using drugs and will have no problem. Most of them even if they did use would stay clean to find a job anyway.
 
Councilman said:
My concern is that in the Obamation economy the number of people in need of help is astronomical and the tests will only add to cost problem that is already too high.

In the past year, some states have seen increases of 15% or more in their welfare caseloads, including Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Washington.
Click to expand...

Precisely. The vast majority of Americans want to work. It is part of our culture and heritage. More so that any other nation on earth, Americans place great importance on where a person works and what a person does at his/her place of employment. In the U.S. the social stigma of not working is huge. The assumption that with a real unemployment rate of well over 10% and God know how many underemployed in America that the majority of these people are drug addicts and lazy is stupid and childish. It would be damn near impossible to test these unfortunates every time before they got a support check or food stamps. It would also be demoralizing and unwarranted for a significant majority of them.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
In some ways, this would have seemed a no-brainer. While it got some political challenges, it seems headed for Constitutional muster as well.



I would like to think that this shoul dbe common-sense policy nationwide for anyone on any government assistance, to include those getting a government paycheck of any sort.

Constitutional claims or not, I think this one hard to oppose politically. Of course, I am for the legalization of all drugs, with conditions, but would still want drug testing mandated regardless.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd call it "common sense" as much as unnecessary nanny state government interference in the lives of its citizens whom have not been charged with crimes. I'd rather keep this sort of big brother watching out of the hands of government.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Precisely. The vast majority of Americans want to work. It is part of our culture and heritage. More so that any other nation on earth, Americans place great importance on where a person works and what a person does at his/her place of employment. In the U.S. the social stigma of not working is huge. The assumption that with a real unemployment rate of well over 10% and God know how many underemployed in America that the majority of these people are drug addicts and lazy is stupid and childish. It would be damn near impossible to test these unfortunates every time before they got a support check or food stamps. It would also be demoralizing and unwarranted for a significant majority of them.
Click to expand...

Well if worst case scenario's were the norm we mite have an issue. The truth often lies someplace in the middle.

So all "ifs" aside whats done is done, and the proof will be in the pudding.
 
Blackdog said:
And that is fine. Allot of unemployed are not using drugs and will have no problem. Most of them even if they did use would stay clean to find a job anyway.
Click to expand...

Is this the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" argument? The one which pretty much gives away that what is being called for is unnecessary and constitutes dangerous growth in government and its powers? Hmmm, interensting.
 
Ikari said:
Is this the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" argument? The one which pretty much gives away that what is being called for is unnecessary and constitutes dangerous growth in government and its powers? Hmmm, interensting.
Click to expand...

No it's a common sense in this case. To go into the military you get drug tested. To get most jobs worth having you get drug tested. Why should government welfare be any different?

Forgot to mention every government job requires drug testing. Police, fire, municipal etc. Why does welfare get a pass?
 
Last edited:
This is a great law!

Why should taxpayers support counter-productive pot heads?
 
Blackdog said:
No it's a common sense in this case. To go into the military you get drug tested. To get most jobs worth having you get drug tested. Why should government welfare be any different?

Forgot to mention every government job requires drug testing. Police, fire, municipal etc. Why does welfare get a pass?
Click to expand...

Because it's government granted assistance. It's not a job you're doing. You're not applying for a position. I'd like to keep constant monitoring of the People by the government to the smallest value possible.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
This is a great law!

Why should taxpayers support counter-productive pot heads?
Click to expand...

Because time and effort can be best spent elsewhere.

I wonder what the results of a drug test on all of Congress would produce.
 
Ikari said:
Because it's government granted assistance. It's not a job you're doing. You're not applying for a position. I'd like to keep constant monitoring of the People by the government to the smallest value possible.
Click to expand...

I understand why you would want to keep government monitoring to a minimum. In this case though, it is tax payer money going out, so they have an interest in it being used for what it is intended. I have seen way too many sell stamps at .50 on the dollar for drugs. It is sickening. So in this case, I have to go with "do it" as the infrastructure is already in place with other government positions at all levels.
 
Blackdog said:
I understand why you would want to keep government monitoring to a minimum. In this case though, it is tax payer money going out, so they have an interest in it being used for what it is intended. I have seen way too many sell stamps at .50 on the dollar for drugs. It is sickening. So in this case, I have to go with "do it" as the infrastructure is already in place with other government positions at all levels.
Click to expand...

I'd take it as a consequence of our system and economics. If they're selling them for drugs...well we gave them those stamps and once they have them; they are theirs to do with as they like. If we have a system like welfare, stuff like this is bound to happen. But that's the end all of it. I don't want to start excusing gross data storage and gathering and monitoring by the government of the People. Government cannot be trusted with the power it wields and will almost always abuse it. And for something like constant monitoring of people in general, people not being charged with crime; well I'd much rather err on the side of liberty on this one.
 
Ikari said:
I'd take it as a consequence of our system and economics. If they're selling them for drugs...well we gave them those stamps and once they have them; they are theirs to do with as they like. If we have a system like welfare, stuff like this is bound to happen. But that's the end all of it. I don't want to start excusing gross data storage and gathering and monitoring by the government of the People. Government cannot be trusted with the power it wields and will almost always abuse it. And for something like constant monitoring of people in general, people not being charged with crime; well I'd much rather err on the side of liberty on this one.
Click to expand...

Well then we have to agree to disagree. I don't think it has anything to do with liberty. People want something for nothing, well nothing in life is free. Pee in the cup you get free money and food stamps, fail and you get nothing.

Has to do with that whole taking responsibility for yourself deal.
 
Blackdog said:
Well then we have to agree to disagree. I don't think it has anything to do with liberty. People want something for nothing, well nothing in life is free. Pee in the cup you get free money and food stamps, fail and you get nothing.

Has to do with that whole taking responsibility for yourself deal.
Click to expand...

I don't know about "something for nothing". There are certainly cases of abuse, and those can be addressed on the individual basis. However, welfare isn't just for the people on it, it's for all of us. The purpose being that if we can aggregate the support over the whole of us; we can prop up people long enough to see them through bad times. On the otherside, they can get a job and become productive again which overall nets positive for the rest of us since we can have a worker and taxpayer instead of a homeless bum.
 
danarhea said:
I wouldn't call it class warfare, but it is doing something that punishes the children.
Click to expand...

I have been away from the thread, but have now read it all. I want to redress the quoted issue. Here is a blurb, from the OP, and also provided earlier by another poster:

Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.
Click to expand...

I would submit that rather than "punish the children", as Danarhea suggested, that it is actually seeking to improve the situation for the children. In that they are taking steps to insure that the adult who is in receipt of funds intended to help support the children is reasonably responsible. They do this by replacing an irresponsible adult with one deemed more responsible, not by eliminating the cash/assistance flow completely.

I believe that Kentucky has a similar drug-testing plan in place. I do not know that for certain, how it has gone, etc. There may be other states as well.

I applaud Gov. Scott.
 
Ikari said:
I don't know about "something for nothing". There are certainly cases of abuse, and those can be addressed on the individual basis. However, welfare isn't just for the people on it, it's for all of us. The purpose being that if we can aggregate the support over the whole of us; we can prop up people long enough to see them through bad times. On the otherside, they can get a job and become productive again which overall nets positive for the rest of us since we can have a worker and taxpayer instead of a homeless bum.
Click to expand...

Lets be real here most never get off welfare. We have entire generations of family's living off the state with no intentions of leaving. Mothers having baby after baby to keep the free money going. Now in the beginning it was just a stop gap but much like social security, it has grown far beyond that.

So again I don't agree and have no problem with it at all.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
In some ways, this would have seemed a no-brainer. While it got some political challenges, it seems headed for Constitutional muster as well.



I would like to think that this shoul dbe common-sense policy nationwide for anyone on any government assistance, to include those getting a government paycheck of any sort.

Constitutional claims or not, I think this one hard to oppose politically. Of course, I am for the legalization of all drugs, with conditions, but would still want drug testing mandated regardless.
Click to expand...

IMHO, this will push the focus on cannabis users and not cocaine, heroin, amphetamine and prescription pill addicts who are in real need of medical treatment.

But i do agree it is a step in the right direction.
 
CriticalThought said:
They are also dehumanizing. Can you imagine having someone watch you take piss just so you could get money for food?
Click to expand...
I took drug tests for high school sports and still take them regularly for my job. I think they can handle it.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
IMHO, this will push the focus on cannabis users and not cocaine, heroin, amphetamine and prescription pill addicts who are in real need of medical treatment.

But i do agree it is a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

I am not sure of the specifics by any means. I would hope that they do not have follow-up plans to try to address any recipient who tests positive in ways that are not all-or-none, that being that cannibus is handled the same as heroin. I am also one of those Conservative/Libertarians that want all drugs legalized, but controlled. How this policy would eventually fit into that agenda, for instance if cannibus is legalized next month, I do not know.

Baby steps I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom