Drug testing for welfare

[JQPublic1]

SInce Corporations are people, does that mean we have to test every
CEO who receives Corporate Welfare? I say hell yeah and all of his money grubbing staff too!
If its good for a mother with 5 starving kids, its good for corporate thieves who have been robbing us blind for generations!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

SInce Corporations are people, does that mean we have to test every
CEO who receives Corporate Welfare? I say hell yeah and all of his money grubbing staff too!
If its good for a mother with 5 starving kids, its good for corporate thieves who have been robbing us blind for generations!

Corporations receive tax breaks you goofball... not the CEO's. Are you now arguing that corporations are people and should be drug tested?

My God you lefties are so woefully ignorant.

And for the record, I'm against drug testing for pragmatic reasons... all it will do is create another government bureaucracy, more government employees, etc. and at the end of the day, will cost far more than it saves.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

By paying drug addicts we have created an entirely new class of the employed. They get paid for taking drugs therefore they should continue to take drugs to get the money.

You have such a rich fantasy life.

 

[there4eyeM]

I get drug tested to earn money.... but it's a problem to get drug tested to be given money?

Your employer medling in your private life is your affair. The government doing it is not the same thing.

 

[TNHarley]

I get drug tested to earn money.... but it's a problem to get drug tested to be given money?

Your employer medling in your private life is your affair. The government doing it is not the same thing.

ok so whats your stance on obamacare?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The Florida drug test law was struck down as un-Constitutional, and correctly so.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I get drug tested to earn money.... but it's a problem to get drug tested to be given money?

Your employer medling in your private life is your affair. The government doing it is not the same thing.

And yet we get Obamacare, Nanny Bloomberg, the attacks on smokers, etc.... all by your beloved government.

So much for that fucking idea.

 

[TNHarley]

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

The Florida drug test law was struck down as un-Constitutional, and correctly so.

Hmmmm guess they should have labeled as a "tax" instead? haha

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I get drug tested to earn money.... but it's a problem to get drug tested to be given money?

Your employer medling in your private life is your affair. The government doing it is not the same thing.

ok so whats your stance on obamacare?

That's different.

 

[dblack]

Your employer medling in your private life is your affair. The government doing it is not the same thing.

ok so whats your stance on obamacare?

That's different.

How so?

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

Yet another reason why we need to overhaul the SSI program. The criteria needs to be needs based, but not on self-inflicted "disabilities". And then the roles need to be reviewed using a much narrower definition. Frankly, if some addict or alcoholic cannot make it by themselves, we are purging the species of those who are not viable individuals. If you don't prune the tree...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

ok so whats your stance on obamacare?

That's different.

How so?

Hell if I know.

 

[dblack]

That's different.

How so?

Hell if I know.

Right. That's the point I've been making. It's wrong in both cases.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.)

Here's where your theory fails. If drug addicted recipients of public funding used their "disposable income" to buy drugs, instead of food, too fucking bad. When they spend EBT credit in stores, first, they spend OUR money (yours and mine). If they lost their EBT credit because their drug tests indicated they were spending some other funds on drugs/alcohol, they might spend that money on food, instead. I wouldn't hold my breath on that if I were you. But they would more swiftly eliminate themselves from the gene pool...

 

[JQPublic1]

SInce Corporations are people, does that mean we have to test every
CEO who receives Corporate Welfare? I say hell yeah and all of his money grubbing staff too!
If its good for a mother with 5 starving kids, its good for corporate thieves who have been robbing us blind for generations!

Corporations receive tax breaks you goofball... not the CEO's. Are you now arguing that corporations are people and should be drug tested?

My God you lefties are so woefully ignorant.

And for the record, I'm against drug testing for pragmatic reasons... all it will do is create another government bureaucracy, more government employees, etc. and at the end of the day, will cost far more than it saves.

Don't blame me for sarcastically repeating one of Romney's campaign slogans you name-calling-goat!
I know you heard him say it; so, you should have known better than to try and attribute that garbage to a "lefty." BTW, I am right handed you ignoramus!

Get nuked, GLOW UP and fry those skid marks in yer underpants...JERK!

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

You do miss the point that the ONLY people who will actually pay for health care are those who work and earn. The existing 47% (growing daily) will receive their apportioned health care for "free". I guarantee, the 47% will have better health care than anyone who actually drops their money into the pot.

 

[del]

If they fail they pay for it. It was in the article.

Not only do 98% not fail, but they also don't pay for the 101 other costs that it takes to create a whole new level of government. Those that fail pay the $60 for the drug tests only.

Hence why it cost the state of FL 40 thousand dollars in under 4 months.

98% failing comes out alot better than 40k. Im sure they saved money if that was the case

Reading Is Fundamental

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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!

No, in the United States we have the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, each have a Due Process Clause. That means one is innocent of a crime until proven guilty, and a citizen can not be subject to a punitive measure – such as denying an applicant’s public assistance – absent due process.

The Fourteenth Amendment also has a Equal Protection Clause, that means a particular class of persons – such as public assistance applicants – can’t be singled out for a punitive measure simply because they belong to that class, or society in general ‘disapproves’ of that class’ activities.

Because simply applying for public assistance doesn’t mean one is a ‘drug user,’ the state can not take adverse action against applicants without evidence of an illegal activity.

Last, there are also Fourth Amendment privacy rights issues as well as reasonable search and seizure concerns.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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?

You know, if the person hasn't the slightest care about him/herself...or their children, too fucking bad. There have been myriad programs available for decades now and the problem has not been alleviated. Some people just don't give a shit about themselves, or the unfortunate spawn they engender. I should care why?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I get drug tested to earn money.... but it's a problem to get drug tested to be given money?

That's a fact. Drug/alcohol tested to get the job, random tests to keep the job. And you know what, those drug/alcohol tests are mandated by GOVERNMENT agencies, i.e. DOT and FAA.