• 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

In theory this does seem like a good idea if it does in fact save money. I saq where someone wrote that the recipient pays for they test so that wouldn't cost more government money BUT what if your clean? does the government then reimburse you? it better.

Also can this really generate enough money for rehab? Doesn't rehab cost like 14K and up?

Again in theory I like the idea but will it really be saving money? will crime and jail population go up, will tax money need increased to pay for the rehab? etc etc etc
 
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 though about that too? how often is the testing and how will it be done, not a drug expert but the heavy stuff from my understanding leaves your body fast under a urine/blood test while weed something I couldn't care less about stays around. maybe I have that wrong though.

If the testing is often and blood or hair its gonna get expensive real quick.
 
Blackdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

If we're going to be real here, then some won't get off welfare. It still comes down to too much government interference and monitoring in our daily lives. I don't care if someone takes welfare (well I do, but starting with the fact that we have a welfare system, people will use it and that's the starting point), they do not abdicate any of their rights for doing so. Including the right to secure themselves, their papers, and property against unreasonable search and seizure. This is unreasonable. Using a government program cannot be giving away your ability to exercise your rights. While I understand people being disgruntled about paying into a system which is abused by some, I cannot excuse this sort of gross expansion of government power against the rights of the individual.
 
Ikari said:
If we're going to be real here, then some won't get off welfare. It still comes down to too much government interference and monitoring in our daily lives. I don't care if someone takes welfare (well I do, but starting with the fact that we have a welfare system, people will use it and that's the starting point), they do not abdicate any of their rights for doing so. Including the right to secure themselves, their papers, and property against unreasonable search and seizure. This is unreasonable. Using a government program cannot be giving away your ability to exercise your rights. While I understand people being disgruntled about paying into a system which is abused by some, I cannot excuse this sort of gross expansion of government power against the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

The use of the program is a choice. Volunteering evidence of sobriety as a condition of qualifying for a program is not unreasonable. I see it more as a gesture of good faith. Welfare programs have eligibility criteria. Should they not?
 
Neomalthusian said:
The use of the program is a choice. Volunteering evidence of sobriety as a condition of qualifying for a program is not unreasonable. I see it more as a gesture of good faith. Welfare programs have eligibility criteria. Should they not?
Click to expand...

They can have requirements so long as those requirements do not violate the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
Ikari said:
They can have requirements so long as those requirements do not violate the rights and liberties of the individual.
Click to expand...

Individuals can preserve their own rights and liberties by choosing not to participate in the program. Same way they can choose not to take a job or play an organized sport that drug tests.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Individuals can preserve their own rights and liberties by choosing not to participate in the program. Same way they can choose not to take a job or play an organized sport that drug tests.
Click to expand...

That's sort of the Catch 22 then eh? You're in a terrible spot, we have the ability to help you out of this spot, but if you take it then you must give up your rights; but you can preserve your rights by not taking the assistance that you need. Not something I really want government doing. With various private companies, fine. But this sort of broad ranged documentation and surveillance of the population in general is not something I am comfortable with government doing.
 
Risky Thicket said:
It's social engineering. Social engineering, isn't that a conservative term? Interesting that you have a conservative governor imposing social engineering on citizens. The logistics would be difficult and costly as hell. The idea is also discriminatory against poor people. If it is applied it should then be applied fairly and therefore all employees of any business that receives state money should also be drug tested including corporate officers, boards of directors, and lobbyists. Make it just.

If the point is that state money may finance drug abuse then any and all state money may finance drug abuse. Test anyone who receives money from the state or test no one that receives money from the state. That also includes state legislature and staff. I don't see that offing happening, do you?

The proposed Florida law is just another attempt to separate the wealthy and powerful from everyone else, class warfare.
Click to expand...

no, the difference is the proposal only affects people getting "free" money..
only seems fair that if you are in need of a free ride you should be required to do so drug free...
whats gotten into your logic?

testing people who are going ot work every day and have done nothing to warrant a test is entirely different matter
 
Ikari said:
That's sort of the Catch 22 then eh? You're in a terrible spot, we have the ability to help you out of this spot, but if you take it then you must give up your rights; but you can preserve your rights by not taking the assistance that you need. Not something I really want government doing. With various private companies, fine. But this sort of broad ranged documentation and surveillance of the population in general is not something I am comfortable with government doing.
Click to expand...

Well truthfully I'm not either, but this is just a portent of the oppression an entitlement/welfare society eventually ushers in. Government comes a knockin' asking for funds saying Joe down the street "needs" it, eventually the public wants to know why. We want proof the "need" for our mandated charity is real and legitimate, not feigned for free cash, and ESPECIALLY not used to make Joe worse off (which is what happens when addicts get more money--it makes them worse).

It SHOULD be no one's damn business what Joe does to get high, but that attitude only flies when Joe faces his own consequences thereof, and isn't bailed out (or worse, enabled) by the collective.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
If we're going to be real here, then some won't get off welfare. It still comes down to too much government interference and monitoring in our daily lives. I don't care if someone takes welfare (well I do, but starting with the fact that we have a welfare system, people will use it and that's the starting point), they do not abdicate any of their rights for doing so. Including the right to secure themselves, their papers, and property against unreasonable search and seizure. This is unreasonable. Using a government program cannot be giving away your ability to exercise your rights. While I understand people being disgruntled about paying into a system which is abused by some, I cannot excuse this sort of gross expansion of government power against the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

you're either really young or clueless..

so Ill go with really young just to give you the benefit
 
The entire mentality behind this is just a heavy handed take on the misguided notion that using drugs (but really only SOME drugs) is somehow immoral and must be punished. Don't forget, this does not simply weed out addicts, it targets casual drug users as well. Don't forget that a THIRD OF THE COUNTRY have, at some point in their lives, used marijuana. Most drug users, even impoverished ones, are not dangerous addicts, they're simply people who like to feel good once in a while. And people in poverty are the ones who most need an artificial way to feel good.

This is just a lot of bullsh*t moralizing, and the continued attack on the poor.
 
Why do the poor have to do drugs?
 
Paschendale said:
The entire mentality behind this is just a heavy handed take on the misguided notion that using drugs (but really only SOME drugs) is somehow immoral and must be punished. Don't forget, this does not simply weed out addicts, it targets casual drug users as well. Don't forget that a THIRD OF THE COUNTRY have, at some point in their lives, used marijuana. Most drug users, even impoverished ones, are not dangerous addicts, they're simply people who like to feel good once in a while. And people in poverty are the ones who most need an artificial way to feel good.

This is just a lot of bullsh*t moralizing, and the continued attack on the poor.
Click to expand...

you're joking right..

you honestly think that someone, out of work, destitute to the point of needing government assistance has the time to use even casual drugs..
which arent free by the way.
so in theory we are buying these drugs for them

wheres my America.. i want it back, these people have lost thier minds
 
I haven't read this entire thread, so if this point is already stated I apologize.

When I go to work anywhere I have ever worked I have to consent to drug screening. When I was in the military, it was often. In the private sector it was a bit more rare other than for hire. When i did clinical rotations, it was required. So what is so wrong with requiring the same for people who are getting a benefit from the government?
 
WI Crippler said:
Why do the poor have to do drugs?
Click to expand...

They don't have to, but plenty of people (not just poor) do. They just can't afford the expensive perscription drugs and cocain that the upper class can afford.
 
shades said:
you're joking right..

you honestly think that someone, out of work, destitute to the point of needing government assistance has the time to use even casual drugs..
which arent free by the way.
so in theory we are buying these drugs for them

wheres my America.. i want it back, these people have lost thier minds
Click to expand...

The US government has long been involved in the drug trade.
 
Ikari said:
The US government has long been involved in the drug trade.
Click to expand...

ok, now I know who I'm talking to,
proceed

your spaceship will be waiting for you
 
shades said:
ok, now I know who I'm talking to,
proceed

your spaceship will be waiting for you
Click to expand...

Your insults are weak and unimaginative. Please put more work into them.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
The entire mentality behind this is just a heavy handed take...

(snip)

...This is just a lot of bullsh*t moralizing, and the continued attack on the poor.
Click to expand...

Rant noted, but have you even read what other folks have posted in this thread?
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
The entire mentality behind this is just a heavy handed take on the misguided notion that using drugs (but really only SOME drugs) is somehow immoral and must be punished. Don't forget, this does not simply weed out addicts, it targets casual drug users as well. Don't forget that a THIRD OF THE COUNTRY have, at some point in their lives, used marijuana. Most drug users, even impoverished ones, are not dangerous addicts, they're simply people who like to feel good once in a while. And people in poverty are the ones who most need an artificial way to feel good.

This is just a lot of bullsh*t moralizing, and the continued attack on the poor.
Click to expand...

I have to take issue with this. This is not just about the individual adult who receives and then distributes the assorted welfare to the family. You post as though that is the case. I submit it is quite the opposite.

This is also very much about those other dependents. Especially the kids. The state is saying not just that a welfare recipient who does drugs may be deemed ineligible, but more importantly, that where an adult is found to be a "druggie", the state will find a non-druggie adult conduit through which to get the benefits to the other dependents.

I do not see "bull**** moralizing" and an "attack on the poor". I am still waiting to see one reasoned disagreement with this new policy though.
 
Ikari said:
They don't have to, but plenty of people (not just poor) do. They just can't afford the expensive perscription drugs and cocain that the upper class can afford.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but I don't see how "government won't pay money to people who fail drug tests" equals "war on the poor".
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I have to take issue with this. This is not just about the individual adult who receives and then distributes the assorted welfare to the family. You post as though that is the case. I submit it is quite the opposite.

This is also very much about those other dependents. Especially the kids. The state is saying not just that a welfare recipient who does drugs may be deemed ineligible, but more importantly, that where an adult is found to be a "druggie", the state will find a non-druggie adult conduit through which to get the benefits to the other dependents.

I do not see "bull**** moralizing" and an "attack on the poor". I am still waiting to see one reasoned disagreement with this new policy though.
Click to expand...

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. Heck, the drug tests aren't free either. That will cost tax payers quite substantially as well.

It would be better to offer substance abuse treatment if they are going to test them.
 
WI Crippler said:
I understand that, but I don't see how "government won't pay money to people who fail drug tests" equals "war on the poor".
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's a war on the poor. I'm saying that I don't believe this large scale information search and databasing is proper power of the government.
 
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...


We were paying for them anyway.

At some point we need to not be held hostage by people using children to tug on our heart strings, when those same people would rather pay for a fix than for formula.
 
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. Heck, the drug tests aren't free either. That will cost tax payers quite substantially as well.

It would be better to offer substance abuse treatment if they are going to test them.
Click to expand...

Hummmm, haven't you made the argument in the past that, if a charity is going to get federal money than they need to abide by federal law? How's this any different? You want state money, you abide by state rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom