• 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

nlsme said:
So how is it going to keep the taxpayers from funding drug habits? Even IF they fail, they can still receive the benefits. And the ones that dont fail STILL lose out on the $42. Their benefits are NOT going to be increased by the $42. Of course $42 isnt going to make anybody rich over night. Multiply that $42 by 1.5 million people, every year, and a few people stand to make a lot of money from it.
Click to expand...

As follows:
Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.
Click to expand...

Children are still taken care of. The drug user, however, is not.
 
nlsme said:
So, when the "designated third party"(that the drug addict designates) then hands over the money to the parent, or the bag of drugs?
Click to expand...
I haven't read the fine print of the law, have you? (serious question). I imagine it isn't just "I failed, here is the name of my druglord, please send the cash money to him". If that is the case, it's a huge oversight. Tried searching for the bill, but couldn't find the original text, and news snippets are far too vague on the issue.

Either way, great way to gather data on drug abusers and build a case as to why these kids should be placed into protective custody. Then the kids, and only the kids, will benefit from any/all aid.
 
nlsme said:
Yeah, way to dodge a good point.
Click to expand...

It's not dodging a good point. It is a good point. Out of all those people that signed the declaration of independence was considered dirt poor and basically the common class with no wealth or status.
 
Once again, compared to legal drugs, the illegal drugs are just a drop in the bucket. What you conservatives are saying is this. As long as you dont do illegal drugs, we will fund your drug habits. Once again, all the money can be used to buy legal drugs.

All this bill is, is corporate welfare. You can fake a drug test quicker then you can blink. It will not stop the money from being wasted. It will not improve the lifestyle of the poor. It will not get people off welfare. It will give a corporation a government hand out.

If you really wanted to get people off welfare then you would support the proven methods of doing so. But no, the only reason this bill gets soo much support is because it makes a huge assumption and funds millions of dollars into the hands of private industry on the back of the tax payer and the poor.

How can you stand there and say, it is a good thing, when it does nothing to reduce welfare and in fact will increase welfare across the board. Corporate welfare is still welfare.
 
At least he is trying to do something. How many times have we heard the gov sits oj there ass and does nothing. Is it the right thing? Might not be but he is trying. Heres an easier way cut out all welfare programs what so ever. They may think they have the right to not Piss in a cup but they don't have a right to those programs that helps them.
 
I don't think anyone is necessarily saying this is going to reduce well-fare in any appreciable form. What it aims to do is stop funding illicit drug use using the welfare money pool funded by tax dollars.

Also, is this drug test going to be done in the form of a urine test? If so, I can see that being easily faked. If it's a blood test, not so much.

I am not sure what the climate is when referring to legal drug abuse, but we must take things one step at a time. Not caring about illicit substance abuse simply because legal substance abuse is a bigger problem would be nothing short of ridiculous IMO.
 
lordofthereef said:
I don't think anyone is necessarily saying this is going to reduce well-fare in any appreciable form. What it aims to do is stop funding illicit drug use.

Also, is this drug test going to be done in the form of a urine test? If so, I can see that being easily faked. If it's a blood test, not so much.
Click to expand...

Do it like the military does. Physically watch them give the sample. Ahhh fond memories I have. Someone watching you take a tinkle. You sure can't fake that. Oh let me guess thats an invasion of privacy. We should do the honor system.:rolleyes:
 
Dark Jedi said:
At least he is trying to do something. How many times have we heard the gov sits oj there ass and does nothing. Is it the right thing? Might not be but he is trying. Heres an easier way cut out all welfare programs what so ever. They may think they have the right to not Piss in a cup but they don't have a right to those programs that helps them.
Click to expand...
Be careful when making a statement like that when trying to defend someone. It doesn't really hold up. Trying to do something matters not if you don't (or can't) get results.
 
Dark Jedi said:
At least he is trying to do something. How many times have we heard the gov sits oj there ass and does nothing. Is it the right thing? Might not be but he is trying. Heres an easier way cut out all welfare programs what so ever. They may think they have the right to not Piss in a cup but they don't have a right to those programs that helps them.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that him creating a law that forces people to use services that is provided by his wife's company is some how ethical? Really?

His wife owns a company that does drug testing. He creates a law that forces people to get drug testing. How is that ethical?

But lord of the reef does bring up a really good point. There is hundreds of studies out there on this subject. Let use just browse the facts a little.

About 20% of all welfare recipients use drugs, which is higher then the normal population. But only about 9.3% of the population use illegal drugs once a year. Only about 3.3% of the population used illegal drugs as a form of habit. 12% drink heavily and 7.3% have a alcohol addiction.


Congratulations. You hand multibillion dollar companies 70 + millions of dollars in corporate welfare, to do what, make it so 3% have to get someone else to cash the check for them? You are not actually cutting the money out, you are just requiring someone that can past a drug test, to get the money and then hand it to the drug user, but let us say we do away with that, let us say we just cut them off. Damn the kids. Now we have a group of people forced to do illegal activities, like break into your house and steal your car to support their illegal habit.

Win win, right?

http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/jcp...ollack_danziger_jayakody_seefeldt_SRI2001.pdf
 
Here's a really simple question:

Let's assume for a minute that the test is free and NO ONE PROFITS one way or another.

Should someone that fails a drug test get welfare? Yes or No.
 
Even if Gov. Scott profits from it, how can anyone argue against it being a good idea in general?

I live in NC, and I pay taxes just like everyone else and to be honest I would pay a tiny bit more if it meant that we could afford to get drug test for welfare and other social services(Abuse classes, GED, Etc.) The people on the programs might be uncomfortable and hell alot of the really hard drug users would drop out, but if it means helping just one person get off of something and start to turn their life around, how can anyone argue with progress?
 
JimmyRayBob said:
Here's a really simple question:

Let's assume for a minute that the test is free and NO ONE PROFITS one way or another.

Should someone that fails a drug test get welfare? Yes or No.
Click to expand...
Good question that. I like your style.

On the one hand, taxpayers shouldn't have to fund anyone's drug habits, and it may encourage them to come off the drugs. On the other, druggies are notoriously difficult to pull off of their addiction and they may well turn to a life of crime to fund it instead.

I don't personally have an easy answer to this.

And, as has been mentioned, there's the issue of legal drug abuse of alcohol or ciggies probably being a far greater problem any way.
 
Because it does nothing to accomplish it. It doesnt force anyone into drug abuse classes, it doesnt stop the hardcore abusers from receiving benefits. Did you really just say that those in GED classes should be drug tested as well? Besides, it isnt hard to pass a dt, just use someone elses pee. Wanna watch them? All they have to do is stop using for a while. Cocaine doesnt stay in your system long, they can go a week without using, and pass the test. And, I wouldnt consider a pot head to be a "really hard" drug user. Not to mention, all they got to do, is stop for a month, take the test, and light up again. The ONLY thing this bill does, is line the pockets of the owners of the clinics that perform the test.
 
This country would be a much better place if more time was spent talking about to help people instead of how to punish them.

Drug addiction is the result of bad choices, bad parenting, bad environment, lack of opportunity, etc. Nobody chooses to be a drug addict. Basing eligibility to aid on a clean drug test is cruel and does nothing to help people who need it.

Let's replace "drugs" with "alcohol". If you show alcohol in your bloodstream, should you be denied aid? And if so, why?
 
Or stop drug abusers from getting welfare? As previously mentioned, a monthly or quarterly drug test would solve it right?

Hey, fair enough, I dont know a whole lot about drug testing but at the same time I do know a lot about being decent. I would just like to trust the intentions of other people? You dont? Super, but you're very pessimistic for so. Or maybe im being naive, either way its not like anything we say on this forum will ever count for any opinion or anything..ever. LOL.
 
RedneckDroid said:
Even if Gov. Scott profits from it, how can anyone argue against it being a good idea in general?
Click to expand...
Then it would be a terrible idea. Politicians being in the pocket of corporations(and/or profiteering from their positions) is the recipe for a cancerous corruption which spreads and destroys the fabric of government. In the end, everyone loses. Sorry for the hyperbole, but this stuff has been happening for years and it's hard enough to reverse the rot as it is.
 
So you want to charge them $42 a month to be able to collect aid? And even then, they can STILL receive the aid. They just have to "designate" a 3rd party to collect it "on the childs behalf".

You would like to trust the intentions of other people? Hmm, so you dont trust the intentions of the 1.5 million people that NEED assistance, based on the fact that SOME of them use drugs, but would rather trust the intentions of the man passing the bill, that directly benefits his wifes net worth?
 
Sak01 said:
Then it would be a terrible idea. Politicians being in the pocket of corporations is the recipe for a cancerous corruption which spreads and destroys the fabric of government. In the end, everyone loses. Sorry for the hyperbole, but this stuff has been happening for years and it's hard enough to reverse the rot as it is.
Click to expand...


I see where youre coming from, but I just try to see the good in people. When it was brought up that he came from the field that supplied drug test I didnt see it as he was trying to get money..I saw it as maybe he had an insight on drug testing and thought he might be able to do some good.
 
nlsme said:
So you want to charge them $42 a month to be able to collect aid? And even then, they can STILL receive the aid. They just have to "designate" a 3rd party to collect it "on the childs behalf".

You would like to trust the intentions of other people? Hmm, so you dont trust the intentions of the 1.5 million people that NEED assistance, based on the fact that SOME of them use drugs, but would rather trust the intentions of the man passing the bill, that directly benefits his wifes net worth?
Click to expand...


True, I trust the 1.5 million people to truly need the assistance and if they want to better themselves than help them. If they are on drugs than give them exams of some variation, if they pull up positive everytime than send them away empty handed. I trust them to do the right thing and get clean :)
 
RedneckDroid said:
True, I trust the 1.5 million people to truly need the assistance and if they want to better themselves than help them. If they are on drugs than give them exams of some variation, if they pull up positive everytime than send them away empty handed. I trust them to do the right thing and get clean :)
Click to expand...
That isnt really trusting their intention, if the first thing they got to do, is prove their intentions, now is it? Plus, not even parolees get a monthly drug test, should a regular citizen really be subjected to it for no other reason than they need assistance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom