• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

N

nlsme

Android Expert
Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.
"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."
Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.
Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure - CNN.com


What say you? Unconstitutional? Undoubtedly, there will be SOME that wont even apply now. The thing is, you can fail the test, yet still get benefits. You just have to "designate" someone to receive them "on your childs behalf". How many drug dealers are now going to be payed DIRECTLY from the state.
 
why unconstitutional?
lets stop giving them money and just give them items directly

no money goes to them, it goes to the grocery store, landlord, ect.

although this would grow government some, i see it as a better way.
but them im also in favor of changing section 8 housing into barracks type.
1 big room, bunk beds and a great 13" black and white tv
heck we can even add a cafeteria for food to help em out

dont want to live like that? work hard to get out.
 
I just dont think it is an effective way of deturring drug use, or abuse in the system. Neither would your idea of section 8. If you didnt know, section 8 isnt really a nice place to live, and most people that live there, would rather not. I know, work harder. Problem is, Mcdonalds doesnt pay enough, and the better paying jobs arent there. More and more people are falling below the poverty line. Not because they "want" too, but because the JOBS ARENT THERE.
 
working hard to get out means getting more education, qualify for better jobs.
will it be easy? no. can it be done? yes.

and even as bad as section 8 is some people do want to live there, because its cheap, and they know they can work very little and stay there
 
Really, so you think the millions of people in section 8 can "get better jobs". News flash, there are millions of very well educated people that cant get a decent job. The jobs are not there. Sure, a handful maybe. My point is, how about we, as a nation, address the root of the problem, instead of giving a negative incentive to NOT be succesful, and hope it solves the problem.
 
lets just keep throwing money at it then.

that seems to be the lefts answer
not working? not enough money
 
There is a differance between "throwing money at it", and addressing the cause of the problems. Education funding is declining, not increasing. Schools are falling apart, so is the rest of the country. The "rich" are exporting jobs, and enjoying government handouts in a far larger scale than the poor, while doing it. The rights answer "put em in a box, let them climb their way out, meanwhile, I am going to sit back and count my billions with one hand, and reach into the couffers with the other".
 
mdram said:
lets just keep throwing money at it then.

that seems to be the lefts answer
not working? not enough money
Click to expand...

CONSERVATIVE LOGIC:

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $300 billion a month. The Bush tax cuts cost $400 billion a month.

But the real problem is freeloaders who can't get a job in a outsourced / exported / raped economy. That's why we need to cut taxes more and eliminate all public services.
 
nlsme said:
What say you? Unconstitutional? Undoubtedly, there will be SOME that wont even apply now. The thing is, you can fail the test, yet still get benefits. You just have to "designate" someone to receive them "on your childs behalf". How many drug dealers are now going to be payed DIRECTLY from the state.
Click to expand...

No, not unconstitutional.
 
So the drug tests I took for every job was unconstitutional? Give me a break I think this is how it should be. Want help? You have to help them by helping yourself first. To say its hard to find jobs that are good paying is laughable at best. I started at burger king when I was 16 and now 23 years later i make ovr $20 an hour. Its called doing the leg work and never give up. My wife got layed off her job and took 6 months to find another job that paid better. So yes it can find a good job you just have to work hard in finding it.

Three things that keeps them from finding a good paying job.

1. Many are too lazy to look for a good paying job. They think it should just be handed to them.

2. Many has criminal records that keeps them from the good paying jobs.

3. Many settles for that job at McDonald's as they still keep their government benefits. If they took a good paying job they would lose it all.
 
noah way said:
CONSERVATIVE LOGIC:

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $300 billion a month. The Bush tax cuts cost $400 billion a month.

But the real problem is freeloaders who can't get a job in a outsourced / exported / raped economy. That's why we need to cut taxes more and eliminate all public services.
Click to expand...

Silly me ... i thought this thread was about drug testing welfare recipients ...
 
I agree with the drug testing. I think it is a good start, but the punishment may need to be revised. Who's to say the receiving party is not in on jacking the system.

Also, it may cause people to start drinking more, instead of getting high.

You guys are more educated than I, about this subject.
 
Sorry, forgot to include the quote I was replying to. Fixed now.

Drug testing is just another way to limit the number of people receiving aid. While those who fail would still receive aid, those with a problem will most likely forgo aid rather than submit to a drug test out of fear they will be prosecuted.

There could be some positive outcomes to this, such as making treatment programs available for drug users, or even making "temporary assistance" (what conservatives would have you believe is a permanent life on easy street at taxpayer expense) contingent upon drug treatment, but I doubt that's what the "compassionate conservative" who enacted this intended. It's just another a way to denigrate and vilify the less fortunate among us.

The ACLU has already filed suit to block the executive order on the grounds that random testing without suspicion is unconstitutional. They won a similar case in 2004.

'The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed blanket suspicion-less drug testing only if "the risk to public safety is substantial and real."'
 
noah way said:
Sorry, forgot to include the quote I was replying to. Fixed now.

Drug testing is just another way to limit the number of people receiving aid. While those who fail would still receive aid, those with a problem will most likely forgo aid rather than submit to a drug test out of fear they will be prosecuted.

There could be some positive outcomes to this, such as making treatment programs available for drug users, or even making "temporary assistance" (what conservatives would have you believe is a permanent life on easy street at taxpayer expense) contingent upon drug treatment, but I doubt that's what the "compassionate conservative" who enacted this intended. It's just another a way to denigrate and vilify the less fortunate among us.

The ACLU has already filed suit to block the executive order on the grounds that random testing without suspicion is unconstitutional. They won a similar case in 2004.

'The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed blanket suspicion-less drug testing only if "the risk to public safety is substantial and real."'
Click to expand...
WHy should they get special treatment of not being tested. THis is the problem we feel sorry for them. So we are blinded from seeing them for what most of them really are. No one forced them to start using drugs. Its real simple you want aid? Then piss in the cup. Real simple logic unless you have something to hide.
 
Dark Jedi said:
WHy should they get special treatment of not being tested. THis is the problem we feel sorry for them. So we are blinded from seeing them for what most of them really are. No one forced them to start using drugs. Its real simple you want aid? Then piss in the cup. Real simple logic unless you have something to hide.
Click to expand...

An unfounded belief based on ignorance or fear that leads directly to incompassion and hatred. How could you possibly know what "most of them" really are?

"Special treatment of not being tested"? Another conservative who apparently has NOT read the Constitution.

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
nlsme said:
Maybe there should be a law requiring drug testing to receive a drivers license?
Click to expand...

Nice one, "public risk".

How about teachers, bus drivers, pilots, rail engineers, truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, etc.

Teachers? Child care providers? School crossing guards?

Cops. Firemen. The list gets long, fast.

How about for voting? Conservatives would love that since all drug users are liberals (except for Rush Limbaugh, of course).

I'd support mandatory drug testing for politicians.
 
noah way said:
An unfounded belief based on ignorance or fear that leads directly to incompassion and hatred. How could you possibly know what "most of them" really are?

"Special treatment of not being tested"? Another conservative who apparently has NOT read the Constitution.

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

They can simply say no to the drug test as no one is forcing them to partake in the drug testing. So no ones forth admendment rights are violated. As you don't have to take welfare now do you. Remember our original freedom. That being the right to choose. If they want the free money and benefits? Then all they have to do is piss in the cup. You make it sound like they pick them up at their subsidized housing at gun point and forces them to take the drug test.

Yet another person that fails to see no form of government is forcing those people to take the drug test.
 
noah way said:
Nice one, "public risk".

How about teachers, bus drivers, pilots, rail engineers, truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, etc.

Teachers? Child care providers? School crossing guards?

Cops. Firemen. The list gets long, fast.

How about for voting? Conservatives would love that since all drug users are liberals (except for Rush Limbaugh, of course).

I'd support mandatory drug testing for politicians.
Click to expand...

Most of those jobs do have drug testing.:rolleyes:
 
Dark Jedi said:
They can simply say no to the drug test as no one is forcing them to partake in the drug testing. So no ones forth admendment rights are violated. As you don't have to take welfare now do you. Remember our original freedom. That being the right to choose. If they want the free money and benefits? Then all they have to do is piss in the cup. You make it sound like they pick them up at their subsidized housing at gun point and forces them to take the drug test.

Yet another person that fails to see no form of government is forcing those people to take the drug test.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has allowed blanket suspicion-less drug testing only if "the risk to public safety is substantial and real." Therefore, applying such as an eligibility test to a citizen seeking aid is indeed a violation of their constitutional rights.

Why do you continue to express ignorance by denigrating those who you know absolutely nothing about ("pick them up at their subsidized housing").

Along those lines, I suggest you read about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, otherwise known as workfare (and what you call welfare). It is far from the red-carpet gold-plated taxpayer-funded free-for-all you imagine it is. Maximum assistance for a family of four is around $600 a month, time limited *and* requires a job.
 
noah way said:
The Supreme Court has allowed blanket suspicion-less drug testing only if "the risk to public safety is substantial and real." Therefore, applying such as an eligibility test to a citizen seeking aid is indeed a violation of their constitutional rights.

Why do you continue to express ignorance by denigrating those who you know absolutely nothing about ("pick them up at their subsidized housing").

Along those lines, I suggest you read about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, otherwise known as workfare (and what you call welfare). It is far from the red-carpet gold-plated taxpayer-funded free-for-all you imagine it is. Maximum assistance for a family of four is around $600 a month, time limited *and* requires a job.
Click to expand...
Why don't you go where as I put it the welfare people live. Oh yeah that's right you would be too scared to. I have been in those areas. I have seen when a cop drives by they scatter inside.

So you have no problem with these people that are drug abusers using the money to get high. instead of them using it to feed their family? Thats fine if you think the system isnt broke. The people that really needs it cant gget it and that ones that dont need t gets it. Go look at the case files of single women with like 5 kids. they are a dime a dozen. We don't have the funds to allow these dead beats a free ride and if drug testing is able to weed some of these people out? Then so be it. Really a person who has been on welfare for 20 years couldn't possibly find a decient job by now? Everything has term limits why doesn't welfare? Give them 2 years and if nothing oh well. That's how unemployment works. They cut you right off.
 
Why don't you attempt to educate yourself by reading the link to TANF?

Dark Jedi said:
Really a person who has been on welfare for 20 years couldn't possibly find a decient job by now? Everything has term limits why doesn't welfare?
Click to expand...

The Act provides temporary financial assistance while aiming to get people off of that assistance, primarily through employment. There is a maximum of 60 months of benefits within one's lifetime, but some states have instituted shorter periods.

In addition:

  1. Recipients (with few exceptions) must work as soon as they are job ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance.
  2. Single parents are required to participate in work activities for at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families must participate in work activities 35 or 55 hours a week, depending upon circumstances.
  3. Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of benefits to the family.

FYI There is no longer any such thing as welfare, it only exists in your mind. If you want to talk about the perpetuation of a lower economic class, that is another discussion.
 
noah way said:
Why don't you attempt to educate yourself by reading the link to TANF?



The Act provides temporary financial assistance while aiming to get people off of that assistance, primarily through employment. There is a maximum of 60 months of benefits within one's lifetime, but some states have instituted shorter periods.

In addition:

  1. Recipients (with few exceptions) must work as soon as they are job ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance.
  2. Single parents are required to participate in work activities for at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families must participate in work activities 35 or 55 hours a week, depending upon circumstances.
  3. Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of benefits to the family.

FYI There is no longer any such thing as welfare, it only exists in your mind. If you want to talk about the perpetuation of a lower economic class, that is another discussion.
Click to expand...

guess what it might read like that on paper but its not being followed. I know a woman that has been on it for 10 years. So that blows your link out the water. Wake up and go look at the real world.

You know what Ford told me I would need a special tool and is in their service manual. Guess what I got my radio out without their special tool. It states that this is the only day to do the job. Just because its on paper dont mean people followes it to the letter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom