• 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

Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

I reckon they'll never find a job, because they'll have to submit to multiple drug screens. Your logic is flawed beyond belief.
 
apdst said:
I reckon they'll never find a job, because they'll have to submit to multiple drug screens. Your logic is flawed beyond belief.
Click to expand...

There are lots of places where you don't need to take one. And also private business and government are two very different things. But you can pretend all you want so that you can continue making dismissive statements; but whatever.
 
apdst said:
It is, when it's my goddamned money they're spending.
Click to expand...

Oil companies can be regulated better then? How about all the corporations getting tax breaks and subsidies? Can we take more from them, demand more from them, regulate them more? It's our money, right?

In the end, you allowed the welfare state to exist as it does now, we live with the consequences of it. Once that money is given to the recipients, it stops being YOUR MONEY. It is now THEIRS. So get off your high horse and mind your own business.
 
Ikari said:
There are lots of places where you don't need to take one. And also private business and government are two very different things. But you can pretend all you want so that you can continue making dismissive statements; but whatever.
Click to expand...

There's not a single, legitimate job in this country that doesn't require drug screens. If they choose to work somewhere that doesn't require drug screens, then they're probably not paying taxes and are guilty of tax evasion. More flawed logic on your part.

It all boils down to: if they don't like it, they are free to refuse to take the government money and go get one of those $3 and hour jobs, where they don't have to take drug screens. I say more power to them.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Bingo! So, why do we allow the government to try to outlaw certain substances?
Click to expand...

Because people will make emotional pleas and ask why no one is thinking of the children. Then we make certain substances illegal and allow the government to expand its powers beyond what it was meant to so that we can save the children by fighting this substance even though in the end all we do is waste our money and allow for some very dubious government activity.
 
Ikari said:
Oil companies can be regulated better then? How about all the corporations getting tax breaks and subsidies? Can we take more from them, demand more from them, regulate them more? It's our money, right?

In the end, you allowed the welfare state to exist as it does now, we live with the consequences of it. Once that money is given to the recipients, it stops being YOUR MONEY. It is now THEIRS. So get off your high horse and mind your own business.
Click to expand...

Approximately 84 billion tax dollars a year is spent keeping shipping lanes open so that oil companies can sell you gasoline.
 
Ikari said:
Oil companies can be regulated better then? How about all the corporations getting tax breaks and subsidies? Can we take more from them, demand more from them, regulate them more? It's our money, right?
Click to expand...

If you want to kill even more jobs, sure, that would be a great idea.

In the end, you allowed the welfare state to exist as it does now, we live with the consequences of it. Once that money is given to the recipients, it stops being YOUR MONEY. It is now THEIRS. So get off your high horse and mind your own business.
Click to expand...

It's my money that is being spent. I'm the customer. I get a say in what happens to that money.
 
apdst said:
There's not a single, legitimate job in this country that doesn't require drug screens. If they choose to work somewhere that doesn't require drug screens, then they're probably not paying taxes and are guilty of tax evasion. More flawed logic on your part
Click to expand...

Really? That's what you're down to now. Places like Agilent and such don't drug screen their tech support and engineers. More flawed argument on your part. Fail.
 
winston53660 said:
Approximately 84 billion tax dollars a year is spent keeping shipping lanes open so that oil companies can sell you gasoline.
Click to expand...

And, that's it, right? No other ships pass through those shipping lanes?
 
Ikari said:
Really? That's what you're down to now. Places like Agilent and such don't drug screen their tech support and engineers. More flawed argument on your part. Fail.
Click to expand...

I would bet that you're wrong, too.
 
apdst said:
If you want to kill even more jobs, sure, that would be a great idea.
Click to expand...

So we can't say anything about the billions being spent on subsidies because it will somehow magically "cost us jobs". But the poor. Well **** them bastards. Great

apdst said:
It's my money that is being spent. I'm the customer. I get a say in what happens to that money.
Click to expand...

No, you do not. It's like saying you bought an apple and the store, and now you get to demand how that store spends the money it took from you for the apple. It's time to stop using stupid arguments.
 
apdst said:
I would bet that you're wrong, too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cause I totally don't know a bunch of folk that work there. You are so right.


Oh wait, no you're not. Quit writing stupid remarks.
 
Ikari said:
Because people will make emotional pleas and ask why no one is thinking of the children. Then we make certain substances illegal and allow the government to expand its powers beyond what it was meant to so that we can save the children by fighting this substance even though in the end all we do is waste our money and allow for some very dubious government activity.
Click to expand...

Right, and because anyone seriously advocating ending the war on drugs is seen as a druggie and "soft on crime". You can't get elected if the opposition paints you as "soft on crime", never mind that the prison population is bankrupting the public treasury, and that the underground drug trade is funding most of the criminal organizations.

It's a crazy world, isn't it?
 
Ikari said:
There are lots of places where you don't need to take one. And also private business and government are two very different things. But you can pretend all you want so that you can continue making dismissive statements; but whatever.
Click to expand...

Very few. And, if a welfare collector wants to apply for a position at one of those companies, git after it.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, cause I totally don't know a bunch of folk that work there. You are so right.


Oh wait, no you're not. Quit writing stupid remarks.
Click to expand...


Do you think that your average welfare recipient can qualify for one of those jobs?
 
apdst said:
Very few. And, if a welfare collector wants to apply for a position at one of those companies, git after it.
Click to expand...

Depends on the field. In high tech you can find quite a few places which don't. Government labs always will, the big private defense companies always will, the small start ups don't always, suppliers such as Agilent, Thor Labs, etc don't (at least not for their technical positions). Hell one of my buddies works at Tricity Motors selling motorcycles, none of those people get drug tested. And a good thing too; I don't think a single person down there could pass one.
 
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 like the idea. Since they receive public money, the public bears the responsibility to ensure that money is not spent on drugs.
 
apdst said:
Do you think that your average welfare recipient can qualify for one of those jobs?
Click to expand...

Maybe now since the economy is still broken and the high tech sector got hit pretty hard. Who is the average welfare recipient?

End of the day, people have the right to secure their persons against unreasonable search. Drug tests merely for accepting government dollars for assistance programs we've authorized to help the poor does not make for a reasonable search.
 
Ikari said:
So we can't say anything about the billions being spent on subsidies because it will somehow magically "cost us jobs". But the poor. Well **** them bastards. Great
Click to expand...

Not all of them. Just the ones who are milking the system.



No, you do not. It's like saying you bought an apple and the store, and now you get to demand how that store spends the money it took from you for the apple. It's time to stop using stupid arguments.
Click to expand...

And, I can stop shopping at that store, anytime I please. Just like I can stop voting for dumbass politicos who want to dump truckloads of money into the pockets of worthless reprabates.
 
Ikari said:
Maybe now since the economy is still broken and the high tech sector got hit pretty hard. Who is the average welfare recipient?

End of the day, people have the right to secure their persons against unreasonable search. Drug tests merely for accepting government dollars for assistance programs we've authorized to help the poor does not make for a reasonable search.
Click to expand...



Again, if they don't like it, don't apply for welfare.
 
winston53660 said:
What else is being exported from the middle east, Nikes?
Click to expand...

Cotton, fruit, livestock, car parts, textiles, etc. Not to mention the stuff that is imported. It's called, "trade", and trade makes money
 
apdst said:
Again, if they don't like it, don't apply for welfare.
Click to expand...

And again, your catch 22. It's dumb. It's against the point of having this stupid system. Welfare exists, it's their money once they recieve it. You no longer have a say in the matter. I'm not going to go after a handful of poor folk "milking" the system (I'm not sure what the numbers are, but I think most people on welfare would rather not be on welfare) because some people have a stick up their ass about some poor jerks doing drugs. We give away money to other people like candy and don't require any of this. But the poor folk, well we can do whatever the hell we want to them because they're poor. Unbelieveable. If we're going to have welfare as a system designed to help the less fortunate in times of need; then that's it. That's how it needs to work. The government still does not have rightful power to search these people nor deny them assistance on the results of that illegal search.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom