• 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

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.

And that's where your influence is. You don't get to say how person X can spend his money. You vote for representatives and effect the system that way.
 
Cotton, fruit, livestock, car parts, textiles, etc. Not to mention the stuff that is imported. It's called, "trade", and trade makes money


Kinda minor when compared to the amount of oil coming out of the middle east.

It's called, "trade", and trade makes money

Then the oil companies can pay for it themselves.
 
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.

But, it's my money before they receive it and I say that some of them shouldn't be getting it.
 
Kinda minor when compared to the amount of oil coming out of the middle east.



Then the oil companies can pay for it themselves.

Along with all the other shippers. Yes? You act as if oil tankers are the only commercial ships on the sea. Why the hard on for the oil and gas industry?
 
Along with all the other shippers. Yes? You act as if oil tankers are the only commercial ships on the sea. Why the hard on for the oil and gas industry?


Because as you say "But, it's my money before they receive it and I say that some of them shouldn't be getting it."
 
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.

Wow ! Just Wow !! Submitting to, and then passing, a drug test, so as to suck at the government teat, is now "unreasonable government force". Forget that it is a process that seeks to be sure dependents of those on government aid actually may benefit where a drug-using recipient had been a part of the process.

Of course, having to submit to a drug test so as to get a job at any one of a thousand places must "be unreasonable non-government force". :roll:
 
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.

Of course, if you had a derelict adult sibling, who could not hold a job, much less find a new one, because they were a substance abuser, and they came to you for money, you would have no basis upon which to say "no". In fact, not having any extra money yourself would not be an adequate excuse. You would be obligated to give, to expect no minimal performance standards, and to take on the debt.

Let's add an additional wrinkle. You have a second sibling, down and out, but not on drugs, and very much legitimately enduring hardship through no fault of their own. You have been helping them. Now you have to reduce that, so as to be able to help the bum. Forever. Regardless.

OPM (Other people's money) sure does switch things up at times :)
 
Last edited:
But, it's my money before they receive it and I say that some of them shouldn't be getting it.

You can say that all you want. But the government took it and the government deals it out and the government is limited in the manners which it can act in against our rights and liberties.
 
Of course, if you had a derelict adult sibling, who could not hold a job, much less find a new one, because they were a substance abuser, and they came to you for money, you would have no basis upon which to say "no". In fact, not having any extra money yourself would not be an adequate excuse. You would be obligated to give, to expect no minimal performance standards, and to take on the debt.

Let's add an additional wrinkle. You have a second sibling, down and out, but not on drugs, and very much legitimately enduring hardship through no fault of their own. You have been helping them. Now you have to reduce that, so as to be able to help the bum. Forever. Regardless.

OPM (Other people's money) sure does switch things up at times :)

I'm an individual, not the government.
 
Wow ! Just Wow !! Submitting to, and then passing, a drug test, so as to suck at the government teat, is now "unreasonable government force". Forget that it is a process that seeks to be sure dependents of those on government aid actually may benefit where a drug-using recipient had been a part of the process.

It is an unreasonable search, the individual has right to secure their person against unreasonable search. So yes, it is unreasonable government force. Just accepting a welfare check does not abdicate any of our freedoms.

Of course, having to submit to a drug test so as to get a job at any one of a thousand places must "be unreasonable non-government force". :roll:

It could be, depending on how invasive the test is. Of course, there is less restriction on non-government (private) force than government force.
 
You can say that all you want. But the government took it and the government deals it out and the government is limited in the manners which it can act in against our rights and liberties.

Drug testing is not infringing on anyones rights or liberties. Drugs are at this time illegal.

If the SCOTUS says mandatory drug testing in middle and high school is OK, what does that tell you about this situation?
 
I dont see anything wrong with the government putting stipulations on welfare. Some will say its an unreasonable government force, but people would be submitting to the drug testing so its not forced. Saying they have to choose between the unreasonable force or living on the street to me is the wrong viewpoint. They would have to choose between drugs and food/housing for themselves and their families. If you arent willing to piss in a cup to support your family then you don't need to have tax money supporting you.
 
It is an unreasonable search, the individual has right to secure their person against unreasonable search. So yes, it is unreasonable government force. Just accepting a welfare check does not abdicate any of our freedoms.

And what is your basis for this ? Applying for welfare, instead of relying on a family member for help (my example about you) is a voluntary action. Just as is attempting to gain a job that requires drug testing, background checks, etc. So please provide some credible basis. Or is it just some feel-good opinion ? :roll:

It could be, depending on how invasive the test is. Of course, there is less restriction on non-government (private) force than government force.
Was there any reason to asume it was a different test ? Assume the same basic test.
 
And what is your basis for this ? Applying for welfare, instead of relying on a family member for help (my example about you) is a voluntary action. Just as is attempting to gain a job that requires drug testing, background checks, etc. So please provide some credible basis. Or is it just some feel-good opinion ? :roll:

Was there any reason to asume it was a different test ? Assume the same basic test.
I thought Conservatives were against bigger government, against government spending, and against government intrusion? Why is it they are now championing this measure which increases government, increases spending, and increases government intrusion?
 
I thought Conservatives were against bigger government, against government spending, and against government intrusion? Why is it they are now championing this measure which increases government, increases spending, and increases government intrusion?

Government intrusion? Nobody is making you get welfare
 
Government intrusion? Nobody is making you get welfare
But for the ones in Florida who get it, they will now be subjected to government intrusion. I thought Conservatives were against that? Why are they now championing it?
 
People arent thinking about the far reaching problem thats trying to be corrected here. Most of these welfare reciepients have kids, the public funds is supposed to keep the kids fed with a roof over their head, granted nothing fancy but survival. Parents that use drugs do NOT put the kids first unfortunately they put their habit first...I totally agree that a drug test is not adding to any pain in suffering it may make kids suffer less and at the minimum make them be straight when they get the money
 
OK, reality check: Someone mentioned early in this thread, something about being forced to pee in front of someone, only that's not the way that it's done with non-parolees. The UA labs will only be testing the pee from the children that the welfare parents bring in a nasal spray bottle wrapped with a chemical hand warmer, and taped to the groin area. UA workers aren't allowed to go TSA on anyone. You just have to empty your pockets. Beating urinalysis testing is very easy. Hair follicles can't be beat, yet the hair has to be yanked out by the root, which testing centers are reluctant to do to people. Besides, testing hair follicles is much more expensive.

The only thing this law accomplishes is spending a large amount of money out of the state's coffers.
 
Drug testing is not infringing on anyones rights or liberties. Drugs are at this time illegal.

If the SCOTUS says mandatory drug testing in middle and high school is OK, what does that tell you about this situation?

Drugs are illegal at this time. If you have evidence that I could be using drugs, you could call for a reasonable search of my person to find out. If you do not have that reasonable suspicion, then the search becomes unreasonable. Of which We the People have the right to secure against.
 
And what is your basis for this ? Applying for welfare, instead of relying on a family member for help (my example about you) is a voluntary action. Just as is attempting to gain a job that requires drug testing, background checks, etc. So please provide some credible basis. Or is it just some feel-good opinion ? :roll:

No, it's built from a very obvious difference between government and the individual. The government is restricted in how it can act and what force it can emply against the individual. The individual does not have as many restrictions.
 
I don't recall the fatcats at Goldman Sachs having to pass a drug test before getting their taxpayer funded "bonuses". Maybe I missed it.
 
I thought Conservatives were against bigger government, against government spending, and against government intrusion? Why is it they are now championing this measure which increases government, increases spending, and increases government intrusion?

You are mistaken. Conservatives are for spending wisely. Conservatives are for government wisely. Conservatives are for accountability wisely.

Do you see the common distinction ? :)
 
No, it's built from a very obvious difference between government and the individual. The government is restricted in how it can act and what force it can emply against the individual. The individual does not have as many restrictions.

You wanna bet !!!!! Your druggie neighbor can come to you and demand money, and you can tell him to GTF off your property. Even aim a gun at him in some circumstances. But he can go to the government, and get them to come to you, and demand money from you. At the point of a gun. Their gun. Now aimed at YOU ! And they can take that money from you, and give it to him.

I would hope that you would at least treat it as your money. Just a smidgeon. And not as OPM.

Of course, you could quote no Constitutional precedent that says that making welfare folks take a simple drug test. :roll:

Just more ..........:shock:
 
But for the ones in Florida who get it, they will now be subjected to government intrusion. I thought Conservatives were against that? Why are they now championing it?

Intrusion? If that is the case all those college athletes, high schoolers and middle schoolers, police, Firemen, all government employees including every member of the military and most municipality's. Drugs for the time being are illegal, no intrusion.
 
Back
Top Bottom