Drug testing for welfare

[TNHarley]

What do you guys think about FL doing the drug testing requirement? I say HELL YEA! 56 more states to go!

 

[TNHarley]

No liberal argument?

 

[Katzndogz]

Drug addicts will simply claim that their addiction is a disability and move on over to SSI.

 

[AquaAthena]

Drug addicts will simply claim that their addiction is a disability and move on over to SSI.

Yes, there is no lie they won't use to steal their "fair share" of my paycheck. It is the vision of the anointed to have what they have not earned.

America will continue in the direction of welfare state materialism, until we run out of taxpayers.

 

[Moonglow]

Drug tests are too easy to beat, just a waste of money and time. End the war on drugs, legalize them and tax them. Then work on addiction. Saving billions on prosecution, imprisonment, and reaping billions on sales taxes.

 

[Moonglow]

Drug addicts will simply claim that their addiction is a disability and move on over to SSI.

No SSi if you are a drug addict or crimminal, sorry.

 

[PixieStix]

Let's drug test people before they vote too

 

[Katzndogz]

Drug addicts will simply claim that their addiction is a disability and move on over to SSI.

No SSi if you are a drug addict or crimminal, sorry.

You are wrong because both drug addiction and alcoholism are disabilities ENTITLING them to SSI.

Characteristics of Recipients of Supplemental Security Incom... : The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

The final word belongs to the Social Security Administration

Code of Federal Regulations § 416.935

(a) General. If we find that you are disabled and have medical evidence of your drug addiction or alcoholism, we must determine whether your drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability, unless we find that you are eligible for benefits because of your age or blindness.
(b) Process we will follow when we have medical evidence of your drug addiction or alcoholism. (1) The key factor we will examine in determining whether drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability is whether we would still find you disabled if you stopped using drugs or alcohol.

You might note that if addicts and alcoholics stop drinking and using, their benefits stop so the incentive is to continue drinking and using as if it was a primary occupation.

 

[AmyNation]

FL is old news, they did it, and it was an epic fail.

Texas is trying it now.

 

[TNHarley]

FL is old news, they did it, and it was an epic fail.

Texas is trying it now.

Why a fail?

 

[AmyNation]

FL is old news, they did it, and it was an epic fail.

Texas is trying it now.

Why a fail?

Well, FL sold the drug test program as something that would save the state money. After 4 months it cost the state over 40k, and that's only in the cost of drug tests, so it doesn't include the costs of all the new buerocacy and the court costs. Plus they discovered that welfare recipients have the same level of drug users as the general population.

 

[dblack]

No liberal argument?

How about a libertarian argument?

If you want to get rid of the welfare state, go for it. But as long as we have one, as long as government is 'providing' (i.e. taking our money in taxes in exchange for programs we might, or might not want) for us, it's wrong to strip people of their rights as a precondition for using the service.

I wonder if you've considered the kind of precedents such laws set? You're suggesting that anyone who applies for welfare give up their freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

What if we applied this concept to health care? Government is well on it's way to taking over health care. Will you be suggesting similar requirements for anyone "leeching" off taxpayer money in that arena? Should we be required to prove that we have maintained good personal health habits, or pay a penalty/tax if we can't?

 

[there4eyeM]

Not lib or con, but I thought the conservative position was for individual liberty and government not getting involved in private affairs.

 

[dblack]

Not lib or con, but I thought the conservative position was for individual liberty and government not getting involved in private affairs.

For cons, freedom is a 'sometimes' treat.

 

[Koios]

No liberal argument?

Yeah; it's a stupid policy. When FL endeavors to cut many poor from the welfare rolls, not only do those affected-poor suffer, but the local businesses who would have sold them food, suffer, too. (tip: drug dealers do not accept EBTs, and any who pay 50 cents on the dollar for the EBT credits, enabling the addict to buy crack or pot, will spend the credit in stores. Plus the crack or pot dealer might buy a nice jacket with sports logos, licensed by the NFL, or NBA, or whatever. The money gets around, and helps the economy.)

 

[TNHarley]

So your saying we should keep giving drug users welfare because they might starve? People sell there EBT for money. It happens all the time. I unfortunately know of a few people that sell all but about 75 dollars a month!

 

[TNHarley]

Keep giving drug users welfare because it helps the economy? Oh good fuckin god

 

[Katzndogz]

No liberal argument?

How about a libertarian argument?

If you want to get rid of the welfare state, go for it. But as long as we have one, as long as government is 'providing' (i.e. taking our money in taxes in exchange for programs we might, or might not want) for us, it's wrong to strip people of their rights as a precondition for using the service.

I wonder if you've considered the kind of precedents such laws set? You're suggesting that anyone who applies for welfare give up their freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

What if we applied this concept to health care? Government is well on it's way to taking over health care. Will you be suggesting similar requirements for anyone "leeching" off taxpayer money in that arena? Should we be required to prove that we have maintained good personal health habits, or pay a penalty/tax if we can't?

You are asking for money in welfare, you are not asking for healthcare under government controlled health care. It is imposed upon you. Not only is government health care being imposed upon the individual, but the individual will be taxed to pay for health care to an amount sufficient to prevent them from buying their own.

So it's not the same at all. Of course, the government really is starting to mandate healthy practices and passing laws to make sure you are all healthy.

 

[Koios]

Keep giving drug users welfare because it helps the economy? Oh good fuckin god

Yep; that's about the only upside, if we haven't the slightest concern for the person and/or their child(ren).

But if drug use has you down, maybe take the additional step of dealing with the public health problem, and mandate they enter a monitored drug treatment program. Good? Or good fucking god? Whadaya think?

 

[AmyNation]

The state of FL is embroiled in a legal battle over this law.

The idea is that, anyone who gets money from the government has given up their rights. In Texas, they are including anyone who collects unemployment in their drug tests.

What about veterans
People on disability
Those on Medicare/medicade