Florida to require drug testing for welfare recipients

Сообщение от TheMediator

Don't do illegal things and you have nothing to worry about. Amazing how that works, eh?

What is legal isn't necessarily what you should be entitled to enjoy. There is nothing wrong with smoking weed. Someone shouldn't have to fear reprisal for smoking weed unless they would suffer the same for drinking. If we aren't going to outright be allowed to smoke weed, then we need other protections to allow us to continue to enjoy what we should already be entitled to enjoy without any sort of reprisal.

Blacks used to not be able to ride the bus. Obviously if they weren't doing illegal things everything would have been much better right?

Сообщение от gnomerdon

Yes, I do believe in regulations. Here's a fun fact: Lots of welfare money go to the casino.

Сообщение от ExDementia

Сообщение от Pwntiff

What is legal isn't necessarily what you should be entitled to enjoy. There is nothing wrong with smoking weed. Someone shouldn't have to fear reprisal for smoking weed unless they would suffer the same for drinking.
I agree, and probably would add cigarettes.

If we aren't going to outright be allowed to smoke weed, then we need other protections to allow us to continue to enjoy what we should already be entitled to enjoy without any sort of reprisal.

Unfortunately, it's illegal, and ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, which means apathy or disagreement with the law is right out.

Blacks used to not be able to ride the bus. Obviously if they weren't doing illegal things everything would have been much better right?

Where does this even enter in to it?

Сообщение от xaratherus

im sorry but i just saw this and had to make an acount just to say how $%^&ing stupid this idiot is. my mom has a drug problem but that dosnt mean she is less equal to anyone else! adiction is a desease and it dosnt mean she shudnt be able to provide for her family wen the econemy is complete %^&* like it is. thats descrimination and its wrong. some people were born with adictive personalitys and its NOT THEYRE FAULT.

If your mother is a drug addict, and on welfare, then I have no problem helping the family, and I have no problem helping your mother in getting treatment - but under no circumstances will I ever consider it justified that my tax dollars go to help cover bills so that your mom can spend the money that she does have on drugs.

If your mother is an addict and she is unwilling to help herself to overcome her disorder, then the help that your family needs is a removal of guardianship of you and your siblings to a healthy home environment.

Oh, and by the way, it's not discrimination. Discrimination, in this case, would be unjustly limiting the availability of services because of a characteristic or situation over which the person has no control - but in this case, I feel it's perfectly justified that I do not have to help support your mom's drug habit, and even if that doesn't hold true, addictive personality disorder can be overcome with the proper personal desire and treatment.

Сообщение от Heckler

Surprised no one has mentioned that the Governor pushing this change actually owns a drug testing clinic that will garner huge profits from this bill.

<sarcasm>We should probably assign government liaisons to follow around all welfare recipients to make sure they are spending their assistance "properly." Most welfare recipients are worthless citizens anyways. After all, if someone hasn't done drugs, they shouldn't have a problem peeing in a cup in front of a government worker to get their money. Just like if you get strip-searched by the cops to make sure you didn't just rob the liquor store down the street, you should just accept it with a smile on your face. All of this is so much more proper than actually reforming the welfare system in positive ways anyways (not to mention more profitable!).</sarcasm>

Сообщение от pezz

Well, political corruption is pretty much a given right now. It goes without saying. At this point we pretty much debate the knock-on effects of politicians lining their own pockets.

Сообщение от Heckler

Well, political corruption is pretty much a given right now. It goes without saying. At this point we pretty much debate the knock-on effects of politicians lining their own pockets.

Ah right, it's a given so we should just learn to work with it. Good policy.

Сообщение от Pwntiff

Surprised no one has mentioned that the Governor pushing this change actually owns a drug testing clinic that will garner huge profits from this bill.

Corruption or not, I agree with the law.

Сообщение от ExDementia

Surprised no one has mentioned that the Governor pushing this change actually owns a drug testing clinic that will garner huge profits from this bill.

Lol that's pretty funny and it does bring up questions about his motive behind the bill - BUT that changes absolutely nothing about my stance on it.

Edit: was beaten to the punch. Damn you, Pwntiff....

Сообщение от Heckler

Surprised no one has mentioned that the Governor pushing this change actually owns a drug testing clinic that will garner huge profits from this bill.

Corruption or not, I agree with the law.
Yeah, I'm sure my mother would have had no problem going through with this procedure (which assumes she's a bad person and places the burden of disproof on her urination in front of a clinic worker) if it meant me and my brothers kept getting to eat. We should probably have checks like this all over the legal system, they definitely make the world a better place. After all, you can't fool a urine test. Not to mention raking in those $35 dollar fees... who pays for that again?

Reforming the welfare system properly, and enforcing drug laws the right way is sooo difficult. This is a much better solution. Welfare recipients spending their benefits on drugs are one of the largest problems in the nation right now.... right?

Сообщение от xaratherus

Surprised no one has mentioned that the Governor pushing this change actually owns a drug testing clinic that will garner huge profits from this bill.

He was co-owners of a walk-in urgent care chain. Drug-testing was one of the many medical services the clinic provided, so it was not a 'drug-testing clinic'. He also no longer owns a majority interest in the company. Finally, he's stated that the company has no plans to try for any state contracts related to this change.

That's all in the article I linked earlier. Now, it's possible he could be lying about the company not having plans to try for the contracts for the testing, but the other two parts of the statement - the he is an owner of the company still, or that it was specifically a drug-testing clinic - are both inaccurate.

Finally, as Ex and Pwntiff both brought up, that has no bearing on the validity of the law as a whole.

Yeah, I'm sure my mother would have had no problem going through with this procedure (which assumes she's a bad person and places the burden of disproof on her urination in front of a clinic worker) if it meant me and my brothers kept getting to eat. We should probably have checks like this all over the legal system, they definitely make the world a better place. After all, you can't fool a urine test. Not to mention raking in those $35 dollar fees... who pays for that again?

Now you're just arguing from emotion, Heckler.

A 'drug test' does not assume you're a bad person. Drug tests are a standard part of the majority of jobs in the United States. They've been required for six of the seven jobs that I've held since I turned 18. To claim that this is some sort of criminalization is just patently false.

As for this being dependent on her "urination in front of a clinic worker"? Yeah - you've apparently never had a drug test before. You urinate in a bathroom. You're checked before you go in to ensure that you aren't 'carrying', but no one watches you. As for fooling a urine test - yes, they can be fooled. But to point your own argument back at you (if the corruption is going to happen, why oppose it), then obviously if there is a statistically minuscule proportion of people fooling the test (which is what it is - it's actually very difficult to fool a thorough drug screen) we shouldn't bother doing it for anyone.

As for the fees, if you had read the article, you'd have your answer to that, too: The fee is paid for out-of-pocket by the person requesting welfare, but the fee is then completely reimbursed in the first state payment to the person.

"Welfare recipients spending their benefits on drugs are one of the largest problems in the nation right now.... right?"

Actually - yes, yes it is. Maybe not directly, but it's one symptom of a society that refuses to take personal responsibility and considers the legal rights of the 'poor' drug users and criminals over those of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

Сообщение от Heckler

Сообщение от 324987

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от xaratherus

Finally, as Ex and Pwntiff both brought up, that has no bearing on the validity of the law as a whole.
I never said it did, I simply said I'm surprised. My opinion on the bill is summarized in the other statements above. He transferred majority interest to his wife if I recall correctly, so that makes it okay (right?).

You recall only partially correctly. The article then goes on to say that he sold off their majority interest in the company.

Regardless, the validity of the law is placed squarely on a statistical assumption that a significant amount of welfare assistance is going towards drugs (at least enough to offset the cost of mandatory testing), and that a urine test is a foolproof way of stopping such behavior. Both of these things are false

Regarding welfare users and drugs, you state these things are false - and frankly, I call BS on that. I know a number of people who are on welfare in my state (acquaintances through various social networks), and a number of them are heavy drug users. Is it a majority? No. Is it enough that it's a drain on resources? Hell yes.

As for the urine test being foolproof - as I said above, it's not. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used, because in most cases, it's perfectly accurate.

and it makes me angry to think about my parents being subjected to such treatment and assumptions.

If your parents have a job, it's highly likely that they've undergone drug tests as a requirement for their job. If they aren't, then to be honest they're in the minority; again, drug testing is nothing new, it's a common practice amongst most major employers in the United States. Hell, McDonald's freakin' does it in many states.

Just to add: My parents both think this is a perfectly fair idea; both of them are on our state-based healthcare system since my mother has multiple sclerosis, and my father (at age 63) is having an incredibly difficult time finding a job because of his age. Both support the idea completely - why? Because they feel as I do: Those few who are truly inconvenienced by this (and not simply victimizing themselves mentally over a 'criminalization' that isn't anything of the sort) are a necessary byproduct of a positive change.

Сообщение от Heckler

Yeah - you've apparently never had a drug test before.
Absolutley false, I had to have one every other week on Average in the navy, and (at least, in the navy) it definitely involved a face about 12 inches from my business.

but the fee is then completely reimbursed in the first state payment to the person.
So the net change (in non-drug using cases) is the requirement of a urine test, and a net increase in charges to the taxpayer.

. . . law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.
Of course welfare recipients don't fit this description.

Сообщение от ExDementia

Heckler, are you parents currently on welfare?
Edit: or in need of it?

Сообщение от Heckler

Сообщение от xaratherus

Absolutley false, I had to have one every other week on Average in the navy, and (at least, in the navy) it definitely involved a face about 12 inches from my business.

Ever had one not in the military? Because military medicine tends to be far different from civilian medicine. I've had at least 15 of them, and not a single one has included a person in the bathroom with me when it was done.

So the net change (in non-drug using cases) is the requirement of a urine test, and a net increase in charges to the taxpayer.

Yes to the first, no to the second, because it will decrease the amount of tax money going to those welfare recipients who are using it so they can blow their own money on drugs.

Of course welfare recipients don't fit this description.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say this, nor did I even imply it. As I mentioned above, my parents are on state assistance and disability, and would likely be on welfare if they were not living with my sister, so your insinuation that I would consider my own parents in the same category as 'hard' drug-users (who, by definition, are not 'law-abiding') is both utterly invalid and insulting.

Сообщение от ExDementia

Heckler, are you parents currently on welfare?

That would depend on your definition of welfare, in addition, their situation has changed significantly since I lived at home (in ways that I have no desire to discuss). Regardless that has little to do with... anything.

Just looking for a little context on where you're coming from on the issue.

I don't really understand, you say you're for the law, but are arguing a lot about how bad it is...?

Florida to require drug testing for welfare recipients

Ответить