Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

You mean test people most likely to vote republican? Don't hold your breath Dana.

What people are failing to see here is that it's nobody's business what someone does with their welfare money. If, according to law, they qualify for welfare, then they can choose to waste it on drugs. There won't be anymore funds forthcoming. Which means, they are choosing starvation (or whatever else) in favor of their addictions.

This governmental privacy invasion gets a free pass only because people are emotional over drug use and the governor is playing on people's biases. It's one thing for a private company to test you in order to be their employee (something I also don't agree with, btw), but it's quite another for it to be done in a mandatory fashion under the public domain.

I'm sorry, but the slippery slope does apply here. We give the government a pass to do this, and it's further expansion of unnecessary power. And for the reasons mentioned earlier, it will only end up increasing the tax burden as prisons fill up with desperate people who fall through the social safety net.

Florida is choosing to reinforce poverty, along with crime and punishment. This is all because many conservatives hate welfare recipients as it is, on top of hating the idea of "wasting my tax dollars on drugs". Well, have fun wasting your tax dollars on their room and board in the prison system. It will be far more than if you just minded your own business!

Temporal said:

What people are failing to see here is that it's nobody's business what someone does with their welfare money. If, according to law, they qualify for welfare, then they can choose to waste it on drugs. There won't be anymore funds forthcoming. Which means, they are choosing starvation (or whatever else) in favor of their addictions.

This governmental privacy invasion gets a free pass only because people are emotional over drug use and the governor is playing on people's biases. It's one thing for a private company to test you in order to be their employee (something I also don't agree with, btw), but it's quite another for it to be done in a mandatory fashion under the public domain.

I'm sorry, but the slippery slope does apply here. We give the government a pass to do this, and it's further expansion of unnecessary power. And for the reasons mentioned earlier, it will only end up increasing the tax burden as prisons fill up with desperate people who fall through the social safety net.

Florida is choosing to reinforce poverty, along with crime and punishment. This is all because many conservatives hate welfare recipients as it is, on top of hating the idea of "wasting my tax dollars on drugs". Well, have fun wasting your tax dollars on their room and board in the prison system. It will be far more than if you just minded your own business!

Click to expand...

Except, many times it isn't about just them starving. Many times the only reason a person gets the money is due to having children, who would be suffering because that money was meant to take care of the children, not support the parent/guardian's drug habit. And the children have no control over how much money the parent uses to feed them with and how much goes to support a drug habit.

Personally, I consider it fraud for a parent to be given money specifically to be used to take care of their child, and they are using it or what money they are making (that should be going towards working to get themselves and their children out of poverty as much as it can) to support their drug habit, including alcohol and tobacco. The only reason I don't see it happening that we would insist on testing people for alcohol or tobacco is because it is much easier to claim that you bummed a cig or had a drink curtesy of your family or friends than it is to claim that you are using drugs for free, especially since the alcohol and tobacco are legal and drugs, currently, aren't.

Also, we do specify much of the time what welfare "money" can be used for, including limiting Food Stamps to be used for food (and in some places bare essentials such as toilet paper). Not all government help is monetary. We should probably try to do this more rather than just giving money to people without limiting its use, but that still doesn't mean that we shouldn't expect people to be trying to get a job that could support them and their family, which would mean they really shouldn't be spending any money that they get their hands on on drugs.

Now, I do think that we should probably be offering drug rehab or at least providing referrals and lists of the cheapest drug rehab places and/or perhaps programs/charities that could help pay for drug rehab. If it is offered via the government, maybe it could be on some loan plan.

And I like the part of the bill where someone else can be designated to get the aid for the children.

^ You make a good argument that I cannot refute. Kudos.

Surely though you can see how there is potential for what I mentioned to happen? I agree that when it comes to children we need to know the money has a designated purpose, but what about single individuals? There are lots of those on welfare too, and yes some of them are drug addicts. Do we remove their aid and let them completely slip through the cracks, especially when there is no government subsidized rehab in most localities?

People quickly forget what ADDICTION means. It means you CANNOT STOP.

Temporal said:

^ You make a good argument that I cannot refute. Kudos.

Surely though you can see how there is potential for what I mentioned to happen? I agree that when it comes to children we need to know the money has a designated purpose, but what about single individuals? There are lots of those on welfare too, and yes some of them are drug addicts. Do we remove their aid and let them completely slip through the cracks, especially when there is no government subsidized rehab in most localities?

People quickly forget what ADDICTION means. It means you CANNOT STOP.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. That is why I believe we shouldn't just tell people "sorry you failed the drug test. Next." We should be offering at the very least some help or a way to get affordable help if they care enough to get it. But we can't know that they need the help in most cases without something like these tests, since few are likely to refer themselves.

Temporal said:

What people are failing to see here is that it's nobody's business what someone does with their welfare money. If, according to law, they qualify for welfare, then they can choose to waste it on drugs. There won't be anymore funds forthcoming. Which means, they are choosing starvation (or whatever else) in favor of their addictions.

Click to expand...

If I could pick and choose where the money is spent (as far as my tax dollars) I would have no problem. Since we don't I say test the welfare recipients. If they want free money, no problem. So go Rick! I luv Florida.

Temporal said:

This governmental privacy invasion gets a free pass only because people are emotional over drug use and the governor is playing on people's biases. It's one thing for a private company to test you in order to be their employee (something I also don't agree with, btw), but it's quite another for it to be done in a mandatory fashion under the public domain.

Click to expand...

Yes people don't want drug users taking our tax dollars and buying drugs. Damn right it is emotional, so what? So is health care and gay marriage. What the heck do you think politicians do?

Temporal said:

I'm sorry, but the slippery slope does apply here. We give the government a pass to do this, and it's further expansion of unnecessary power. And for the reasons mentioned earlier, it will only end up increasing the tax burden as prisons fill up with desperate people who fall through the social safety net.

Click to expand...

OK this is just a little to over the top for me. Drug testing just like we do in the military? All government jobs and any job worth having etc? Not to mention all the drug testing in the private sector! Welcome to 2011.

Temporal said:

Florida is choosing to reinforce poverty, along with crime and punishment. This is all because many conservatives hate welfare recipients as it is, on top of hating the idea of "wasting my tax dollars on drugs". Well, have fun wasting your tax dollars on their room and board in the prison system. It will be far more than if you just minded your own business!

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with conservatives hating welfare recipients. Man stop parroting Democratic talking points. This is good that the Governor is actually doing something we elected him for.

I would be happy to get another drug user off the streets and gladly pay for the rehabilitation etc he will get in prison.

DiAnna said:

I don't have a problem with drug-testing welfare recipients... so long as every person in the state who also receives taxpayer money is also drug tested. Do it across the board, or don't do it at all. It would be economic discrimination.

That said, the International Commission on The Global War On Drugs has finally issued the report that should have been issued decades ago. The commission admits that we have lost the war, and that the war itself has enabled global crime cartels to multiply and prosper. The commission also suggests most drugs be made legal and regulated, citing that as the most effective way to cause most criminal drug enterprises to immediately implode. These are not novices on the international stage, either. They are well-respected global players who have served in the IMF, world banks, the highest financial and economic posts around the world.

Legalize drugs, regulate them, problem solved. I've said that for over a decade. Now folks high enough to be taken seriously are saying the same thing. Good for them.

Click to expand...

It is about damn time they came out and said that.

BTW, agree with your post. I do not wish for those on welfare to be treated like 2nd class citizens and feel all those on the tax dolls should have to take it.

Blackdog said:

If I could pick and choose where the money is spent (as far as my tax dollars) I would have no problem. Since we don't I say test the welfare recipients. If they want free money, no problem. So go Rick! I luv Florida.

Click to expand...

Well I say don't test the welfare recipients because that is a waste of my money. Or confine the testing to people who are getting child benefits to ensure the welfare of the children.

Individual freedom trumps your morality, or at least it should.

Blackdog said:

Yes people don't want drug users taking our tax dollars and buying drugs. Damn right it is emotional, so what? So is health care and gay marriage. What the heck do you think politicians do?

Click to expand...

Well at least you acknowledge that it's emotional and therefore not based in rationality.

Blackdog said:

OK this is just a little to over the top for me. Drug testing just like we do in the military? All government jobs and any job worth having etc? Not to mention all the drug testing in the private sector! Welcome to 2011.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the western hemisphere, where only the United States allows wide-spread drug testing in the employment sector beyond high security positions.

If people are performing well at their jobs then how is it any of your business what they do in their off hours? Corporate execs do smack too, do they get tested? I don't think so. It's about authority and control, little else. If an employee is a liability because of lost productivity, then fire them. What they put in their body is none of your concern.

Blackdog said:

This has nothing to do with conservatives hating welfare recipients. Man stop parroting Democratic talking points. This is good that the Governor is actually doing something we elected him for.

Click to expand...

I'm not parroting anyone. Can you actually counter my arguments instead of going all partisan about it? I don't even live in the U.S.

Blackdog said:

I would be happy to get another drug user off the streets and gladly pay for the rehabilitation etc he will get in prison.

Click to expand...

The Florida prison system is not synonymous with rehab. Nice try though.

Most people get hard time, and in the case of three strikes, they get life.

Have fun paying that tab with "your money" while you're busy being indignant about something that has nothing to do with you. You're in the pocket of politicians now... or should I say, they are in yours.

CriticalThought said:

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.

Click to expand...

HUMAN CULTURE is Lamarkian, not Darwinian.

Perhaps if you had a better grasp of basic concepts you'd have less confusion?

People make poor choices. People can also recover from poor choices given the right opportunities.

Click to expand...

Not if they die in the process. Think of the bungee jumper who ties himself to the bridge with 100 feet of cord to make a 90 foot jump. She doesn't get a chance to choose again, and that's just how nature works.

To realize this is to be kind.

Click to expand...

No. Realizing facts of nature is just a matter of being awake. Emotional responses are irrelevant.

Kindness is the act of helping people help themselves.

Click to expand...

The Mayor's plan is so kind it allows people to help themselves to as much heroin as they can carry.

They're being allowed full freedom of choice and all the respect one adult can give another.

Kindness is also a trait that takes a lifetime to develop and not one you seemed to have valued.

Click to expand...

Kindness is not expressed by robbing some people to allow others to sponge off them forever.

Kindness is not expressed by phony compassion that enables addicts to continue to live their pathetic lives on the ragged fringes of society. Heroin is absurdly cheap, let people kill themselves with it if they want, and watch how people who don't want to die discover they need serious help to stay alive.

Coddling doesn't cull the herd.

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.

Click to expand...

You are, of course, talking about the same species of animal the "exposed" infants on hillsides when they were deformed or when there was famine, and who also would leave their elderly behind to face the wolves when they got too old to be of use.

If you're going to discuss human societal evolution, shouldn't you paint a complete picture? Human societies routinely sacrifice their useless members for the good of the whole.

The Mayor isn't forcing anyone to be sacrificed, his plan offers a choice for the individual. Nothing else.

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.

Click to expand...

We need to allow people CHOICE. A man cannot be caged and grow. Denying men choice is like putting them behind bars.

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.

Click to expand...

And when people fail their obligations by becoming addicts, what then? No man is obligated further than his acceptance. That's all there is to that. When a man resigns, by becoming an addict, one can attempt to reason with him to ask him to expand his obligatons, but the choice is up to him. But what the people of society must do is conserve resources to the benefit of those willing to participate. The simplest and most resource miserly option is to enable those wishing to opt out via addiction to do so through their addictions.

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. 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.

Click to expand...

Actually, no such assumptions are being made. The argument is that people who are addicts shouldn't be allowed access to the public mammaries.

If they're clean, where's the problem?

Temporal said:

Well I say don't test the welfare recipients because that is a waste of my money. Or confine the testing to people who are getting child benefits to ensure the welfare of the children.

Individual freedom trumps your morality, or at least it should.

Click to expand...

The Mayor's concept of individual freedom is that the individual should never be denied his freedom to decline to contribute his money to causes he deems unworthy. That would, of course, include any and all federal "welfare" programs.

The Mayor suspects his concept of individual freedom is too moral for your acceptance.

Mayor Snorkum said:

The Mayor's concept of individual freedom is that the individual should never be denied his freedom to decline to contribute his money to causes he deems unworthy. That would, of course, include any and all federal "welfare" programs.

The Mayor suspects his concept of individual freedom is too moral for your acceptance.

Click to expand...

Well, once the financial system collapses, as I hope it does, we won't have to worry about these silly questions anymore.

Then everyone can fend for themselves, as the trend increasingly seems to support.

Temporal said:

Well I say don't test the welfare recipients because that is a waste of my money. Or confine the testing to people who are getting child benefits to ensure the welfare of the children.

Individual freedom trumps your morality, or at least it should.

Click to expand...

The children of drug users are NOT getting taken care of anyway. They are spending it on drugs. So you can leave the "it's for the children" mantra out of it.

This has nothing to do with MY morality and everything to do with idiots using drugs and spending money and food stamps "for the children" from the government to get it.

Temporal said:

Well at least you acknowledge that it's emotional and therefore not based in rationality.

Click to expand...

No I acknowledge it is the way politics works. Don't put words in my mouth.

Temporal said:

Welcome to the western hemisphere, where only the United States allows wide-spread drug testing in the employment sector beyond high security positions.

Click to expand...

Absolutely I don't want drug using police and solders running around with guns, let alone school bus drivers and teachers.

Temporal said:

If people are performing well at their jobs then how is it any of your business what they do in their off hours?

Click to expand...

It is in the company's best interest and since it is a private business they can do this under the law. For government it is for EVERY job high security or not. It is in the governments best interest not to have crack heads etc working for them.

Temporal said:

Corporate execs do smack too, do they get tested?

Click to expand...

In some cases yes. Places that have random screenings.

Temporal said:

I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Then you would be wrong.

Temporal said:

It's about authority and control, little else. If an employee is a liability because of lost productivity, then fire them. What they put in their body is none of your concern.

Click to expand...

Again with the over the top. It is not about authority and control. It's about a safe work environment and employees you can trust.

Temporal said:

I'm not parroting anyone. Can you actually counter my arguments instead of going all partisan about it? I don't even live in the U.S.

Click to expand...

What the heck have I said in my argument that is partisan?

Temporal said:

The Florida prison system is not synonymous with rehab. Nice try though.

Click to expand...

You have done time here I take it?

"The boot camp model is no longer in vogue," Buss said. "As it turns out, it hasn't got us the outcomes we wanted in terms of reducing recidivism. These kids today have substance abuse issues like we never seen before. They need to get back in school and get an education."

That approach is a sea change from the last couple of decades when getting tough on criminals was the demand from a fed-up populace. A series of minimum mandatory sentencing laws has taken effect over that time, including required minimum sentences for crimes using guns, such as 10-20-Life and a number of minimum mandatories for drug crimes, part of the so-called "war on drugs." - Florida's new corrections head pushing for drug rehab, job training

Holy ****! They actually are trying to do it right. God bless the USA.

Temporal said:

Most people get hard time, and in the case of three strikes, they get life.

Click to expand...

What? Most people get probation and house arrest unless it is a crime of violence or domestic violence. Have you ever been in the US? Or have you learned it from watching TV??

Besides, the state is not interested in career criminals collecting welfare. :roll: Nice fallacy though.

Temporal said:

Have fun paying that tab with "your money" while you're busy being indignant about something that has nothing to do with you. You're in the pocket of politicians now... or should I say, they are in yours.

Click to expand...

:lol:

Temporal said:

Being forced to work without pay is slavery. Being tossed into solitary confinement or facing retribution for not working is also slavery. I don't care if they're inmates or not. A lot of prisons don't pay their inmates for the work they do, it's just made to seem like it's part of the penance.

Click to expand...

Oh boo hoo. Are they beaten bloody with a whip? Starved? Is prison something that can be avoided?

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...

They shouldn't be able to by booze with welfare money, either.

Risky Thicket said:

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.

Click to expand...

Anyone that has a problem with being drug tested as a condition of receiving welfare is certainly free to not accept the money and go get a job. Afterall, it is a free country.

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. 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.

Click to expand...

No one is equating poverty with drug use. All we're saying, is that we don't want their drug habit funded with our money.

apdst said:

Anyone that has a problem with being drug tested as a condition of receiving welfare is certainly free to not accept the money and go get a job. Afterall, it is a free country.

Click to expand...

Yeah, here's your choice. Live on the street, or submit to constant government monitoring. Whoooooo, free!

Captain America said:

You mean test people most likely to vote republican? Don't hold your breath Dana.

Click to expand...

Yeah right. We subsidize the crap out of corporations and other entities; but no one is calling for restrictions on them or that money. But some poor jerk on welfare...well we have to make sure it's being spent right. After all, we all know best.

Ikari said:

Yeah, here's your choice. Live on the street, or submit to constant government monitoring. Whoooooo, free!

Click to expand...

Or, behind Door #3: get off your ass and get a job. Just a thought.

I wonder when this country is going to wake up to the fact that a significant portion of the population is chemical dependent, that the so called "war on drugs" isn't working, and that the steps we've taken to remedy the situation have made things worse?

No one wants to be drug tested, why? Because it is such a chore to pee in a cup? Or because so many of us would fail?

Ikari said:

Yeah right. We subsidize the crap out of corporations and other entities; but no one is calling for restrictions on them or that money. But some poor jerk on welfare...well we have to make sure it's being spent right. After all, we all know best.

Click to expand...

I don't know why people think this is unreasonable, especially since most that advocate this idea also advocate testing for all governemnt employees including politicians.

Tim-

apdst said:

Or, behind Door #3: get off your ass and get a job. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Or we could be intelligent about this. Not eveyone on welfare is there because they aren't looking for a job; particularly now with high unemployment and an unresponsive government. So the reason they're on welfare is they have a job and more times than not can't find one. So submit, or get tossed onto the street where it will now become even harder to get a job than before. Your Catch 22 is pretty unreasonable. The choice you want people to have is to live on the streets or accept unreasonable government force against them. As I said, not much of a choice. Pretty stupid when you think about it.

Hicup said:

I don't know why people think this is unreasonable, especially since most that advocate this idea also advocate testing for all governemnt employees including politicians.

Tim-

Click to expand...

Government agents and the free People are two different groups. Government is restricted. It's unreasonable search of a person, and we have right against that. I don't care if you take welfare money, you do not give up your rights. That's a fact.

Dittohead not! said:

No one wants to be drug tested, why? Because it is such a chore to pee in a cup? Or because so many of us would fail?

Click to expand...

Because it ain't the government's god damned business.