Finally, Florida Drug Test People On Welfare

I seriously doubt that there are many, if any, welfare recipients on meth or heroin. They are more likely to be homeless or mooching off their friends and worrying about their next fix instead of doing the paperwork required to receive food stamps.

If there wasn't a problem, then this would be a non issue and no bill would have been passed, IMO.

LOL! Of course it would be passed, issue or not. It's called pandering. What it is is wasting taxpayer money to stab at poor people to earn the votes of the rightwingloons.

Spoken like a true liberal, who wants to be worshipped for her intense compassion for the poor and downtrodden, while never actually being willing to soil herself with the company of those dirty peasants.
 
If there wasn't a problem, then this would be a non issue and no bill would have been passed, IMO.

LOL! Of course it would be passed, issue or not. It's called pandering. What it is is wasting taxpayer money to stab at poor people to earn the votes of the rightwingloons.

Spoken like a true liberal, who wants to be worshipped for her intense compassion for the poor and downtrodden, while never actually being willing to soil herself with the company of those dirty peasants.
Negged for being a high and mighty twit.

:thup:
 
I posted on this awhile ago Meister and the Libs were outraged. Popping positive on a piss test, according to them, would "starve" children and deprive welfare recipients of food. A horrible, horrible thing - according to them.

Life's a bitch, huh. If the welfare addicts don't care that much about their own children to clean themselves up.....take the children from them and house them, feed them, and clothe them. The parents get nothing. That would be a good solution.
sigh....that just punishes the children. Anyway you look at it, you punish children.
living in the house with a mother or father that spends all the money on drugs is punishment!!
 
The goal is to get people off drugs and eventually get them off welfare. It won't save all of them, but it will certainly save quite a few children. Isn't that the liberal mantra?

Drug testing is a deterrent. Ask any probation officer.

SO...being on welfare is a CRIME?

No, dumbfuck. Taking illegal drugs is a crime.

How many times HAVE you fallen on your head?
 
People with no moral compass should not be near children.

And People who steal from their own kids should be punished. Only an amoral person would argue otherwise.
Good point, chanel. We should only allow conservatives to reproduce since everyone knows liberals have no moral compass.

Will you be on the committee that decides who is a good parent or not?
when the issue of poor morals was brought up you went on the defensive....interesting..:eusa_eh:
the left knows they are pieces of shit!!!thats why they hate people that have morals!!:clap2:
 
I wonder how much all this testing is going to cost?

I understand wanting to drug test welfare recipients. I just don't know if the reality of the situation will end up making it worthwhile. Other options might be more reasonable; change the rules for qualification or the verification process, change the way the money is distributed, etc.

Making the recipients pay for the testing (even if they can apply to have that money reimbursed at a later date if they pass the test) also seems ridiculous. These are people that supposedly cannot afford to pay basic bills and they now must pay to have a test to receive this hand-out money? Sorry, but that just seems completely counter-intuitive.

Maybe this will work out fine, I just don't trust that this was passed because it was the best option rather than the one that is most easily spun as a good option.
 
The goal is to get people off drugs and eventually get them off welfare. It won't save all of them, but it will certainly save quite a few children. Isn't that the liberal mantra?

Drug testing is a deterrent. Ask any probation officer.

SO...being on welfare is a CRIME?

No, dumbfuck. Taking illegal drugs is a crime.

How many times HAVE you fallen on your head?

And LEGAL drugs kills more users AND innocent victims than all the illegal drugs combined.

The number of drug deaths in the US in a typical year is as follows:

Tobacco kills about 390,000.

Alcohol kills about 80,000.

Sidestream smoke from tobacco kills about 50,000.

Cocaine kills about 2,200.

Heroin kills about 2,000.

Aspirin kills about 2,000.

Marijuana kills 0. There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in US history.

All illegal drugs combined kill about 4,500 people per year, or about one percent of the number killed by alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco kills more people each year than all of the people killed by all of the illegal drugs in the last century.
 
People with no moral compass should not be near children.

And People who steal from their own kids should be punished. Only an amoral person would argue otherwise.

Choke on this you slime ball...

Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.

* According to a 1996 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, differences between the proportion of welfare and non-welfare recipients using illegal drugs are statistically insignificant.

* Before the Michigan policy was halted, only 10% of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. Only 3% tested positive for hard drugs, such as cocaine and amphetamines – rates that are in line with the drug use rates of the general population.

* Seventy percent of all illicit drug users (and presumably a much higher percentage of alcohol users), ages 18-49, are employed full-time.
 
People with no moral compass should not be near children.

And People who steal from their own kids should be punished. Only an amoral person would argue otherwise.

Choke on this you slime ball...

Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.

* According to a 1996 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, differences between the proportion of welfare and non-welfare recipients using illegal drugs are statistically insignificant.

* Before the Michigan policy was halted, only 10% of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. Only 3% tested positive for hard drugs, such as cocaine and amphetamines – rates that are in line with the drug use rates of the general population.

* Seventy percent of all illicit drug users (and presumably a much higher percentage of alcohol users), ages 18-49, are employed full-time.

Use of illegal drugs is far different from ABUSE of illegal drugs. The problem is that drug use is often a big reason WHY someone is on welfare, not because they are just using, but because the use of the drugs affects thier ability to be functioning members of society.

A person who holds down a steady job and contributes to society can inject/snort/smoke/drink whatever they want, and pay whatever legal consequences happen. Once you become a ward of the state, then the state should have the ability to control what you do with the money, and what you need to do to keep getting the money.
 
So notorious Medicaid fraudster Governor Scott has found a new way to enrich his pockets with a local boondoggle.

He has personal and financial ties to the companies being brought in to test the welfare recipients. For a state which is short on cash, this plan represents a major expansion of government bureaucracy and costs.

Legal costs alone for the various lawsuits and administrative hearings involved will bankrupt the state.
-Since welfare benefits are a right protected by due process, you will flood the courts with people disputing the benefits being cut-off.
-The mailing of the notices of the tests and monitoring of compliance with them will require major increases in administrative staff alone
-Legal staff for the state will need to be beefed up just to handle the class action suits against the state as a violation of 14th Amendment due process and equal protection rights.


"Once you become a ward of the state, then the state should have the ability to control what you do with the money"


So when you draw a paycheck, does your boss have a right to examine your bank statements?
 
People with no moral compass should not be near children.

And People who steal from their own kids should be punished. Only an amoral person would argue otherwise.

Choke on this you slime ball...

Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.

* According to a 1996 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, differences between the proportion of welfare and non-welfare recipients using illegal drugs are statistically insignificant.

* Before the Michigan policy was halted, only 10% of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. Only 3% tested positive for hard drugs, such as cocaine and amphetamines – rates that are in line with the drug use rates of the general population.

* Seventy percent of all illicit drug users (and presumably a much higher percentage of alcohol users), ages 18-49, are employed full-time.

Use of illegal drugs is far different from ABUSE of illegal drugs. The problem is that drug use is often a big reason WHY someone is on welfare, not because they are just using, but because the use of the drugs affects thier ability to be functioning members of society.

A person who holds down a steady job and contributes to society can inject/snort/smoke/drink whatever they want, and pay whatever legal consequences happen. Once you become a ward of the state, then the state should have the ability to control what you do with the money, and what you need to do to keep getting the money.

Bring PROOF of your slime ball beliefs.
 
Choke on this you slime ball...

Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.

* According to a 1996 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, differences between the proportion of welfare and non-welfare recipients using illegal drugs are statistically insignificant.

* Before the Michigan policy was halted, only 10% of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. Only 3% tested positive for hard drugs, such as cocaine and amphetamines – rates that are in line with the drug use rates of the general population.

* Seventy percent of all illicit drug users (and presumably a much higher percentage of alcohol users), ages 18-49, are employed full-time.

Use of illegal drugs is far different from ABUSE of illegal drugs. The problem is that drug use is often a big reason WHY someone is on welfare, not because they are just using, but because the use of the drugs affects thier ability to be functioning members of society.

A person who holds down a steady job and contributes to society can inject/snort/smoke/drink whatever they want, and pay whatever legal consequences happen. Once you become a ward of the state, then the state should have the ability to control what you do with the money, and what you need to do to keep getting the money.

Bring PROOF of your slime ball beliefs.

All i did was point out that the study you referenced was based on ANY drug use, not abuse. It is not a belief that poorer people often have greater drug abuse problems and consequences from those drug abuse problems, it is reality.

The difference is again not in the use of drugs, but in the fact that these people are wards of the state by thier use of state funds without providing a meaningful service in return. The state should then be able to set the conditions of said use.

As for the personal attacks....

i926.photobucket.com_albums_ad105_blackdragondies2009_snob-you-seem-angry-why-u-mad-brah-1.jpg
 
These threads always strike me as funny, the wolves are stealing the chickens while the chickens fight among themselves over bits of corn. When did America change from a land that went after the big criminals to a land that only goes after the needy? One would think welfare was riches, Reagan's Cadillac mom was fiction but remains the deepest thought the wingnuts can harbor in that empty space between their ears.
 
It would probably be more cost effective if they did random testing and/or target those that have criminal histories or histories of abuse or neglect. But the libs would cry "discrimination" so they'll have to test everyone. Pissing in a cup is not a big deal for people who are clean. In fact, I'm surprised that Medicaid doesn't require it. Aren't the feds interested in public health?
 
It would probably be more cost effective if they did random testing and/or target those that have criminal histories or histories of abuse or neglect. But the libs would cry "discrimination" so they'll have to test everyone. Pissing in a cup is not a big deal for people who are clean. In fact, I'm surprised that Medicaid doesn't require it. Aren't the feds interested in public health?
Why stop there? Why not SS recipients and Medicare recipients? How about people that get EITCs? Mortgage deductions?

Why not make it so that we all must pee in a cup to benefit from any tax money spent?
 

:lol:
This is exactly what I'm talking about as far as owning you.
A hair follicle test shows all the drugs you have taken...the longer the hair the more data it would show. Can't cheat on that test, son.
Nice playing with ya bfd...got some yardwork to do and some volunteer work at the church. Just so you don't think I'm cutting and running after I owned you. :razz:

Hey Einstein, I have some bad news for ya...

It takes approximately 6–8 hrs. post-consumption for drug to be metabolized and excreted in urine. Hair requires two weeks.

Come back later so you can declare faux victory...
And you think that a druggie just started the drugs in the last two weeks.....Einstein.
Boy....you are in denial, Albert.
 
It would probably be more cost effective if they did random testing and/or target those that have criminal histories or histories of abuse or neglect. But the libs would cry "discrimination" so they'll have to test everyone. Pissing in a cup is not a big deal for people who are clean. In fact, I'm surprised that Medicaid doesn't require it. Aren't the feds interested in public health?
Why stop there? Why not SS recipients and Medicare recipients? How about people that get EITCs? Mortgage deductions?

Why not make it so that we all must pee in a cup to benefit from any tax money spent?

Medicare and SS are things you pay into to get benefits later. Welfare is the state deciding to take care of you because you can't do it yourself. I was waiting for this comparison.

For Medicare and SS I am paying a poriton of my salary each year in the expectation I am getting a service. With welfare the idea is to get a person back on thier feet. With SS and medicare the idea is to take care of a person with respect to certain things until they die.
 
People with no moral compass should not be near children.

And People who steal from their own kids should be punished. Only an amoral person would argue otherwise.

Choke on this you slime ball...

Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.

* According to a 1996 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, differences between the proportion of welfare and non-welfare recipients using illegal drugs are statistically insignificant.

* Before the Michigan policy was halted, only 10% of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. Only 3% tested positive for hard drugs, such as cocaine and amphetamines – rates that are in line with the drug use rates of the general population.

* Seventy percent of all illicit drug users (and presumably a much higher percentage of alcohol users), ages 18-49, are employed full-time.

Seeing how your peabrain is on defensive overload, I'll 'splain it to you.
Welfare recipients are using tax dollars to buy their drug of choice. The rest of the population that uses buys theirs with their own money.
I know your not going to be able to wrap your mind around that concept, but that is an issue you need to take up with your doctor.
 
It would probably be more cost effective if they did random testing and/or target those that have criminal histories or histories of abuse or neglect. But the libs would cry "discrimination" so they'll have to test everyone. Pissing in a cup is not a big deal for people who are clean. In fact, I'm surprised that Medicaid doesn't require it. Aren't the feds interested in public health?
Why stop there? Why not SS recipients and Medicare recipients? How about people that get EITCs? Mortgage deductions?

Why not make it so that we all must pee in a cup to benefit from any tax money spent?

Medicare and SS are things you pay into to get benefits later. Welfare is the state deciding to take care of you because you can't do it yourself. I was waiting for this comparison.

For Medicare and SS I am paying a poriton of my salary each year in the expectation I am getting a service. With welfare the idea is to get a person back on thier feet. With SS and medicare the idea is to take care of a person with respect to certain things until they die.

But you end up quite often getting back more than you pay in. And the programs themselves must be administered, not to mention being obsessed over by Congress, who also get paid through taxes.

Many people also pay into the general tax fund and find themselves out of work and applying for food stamps. They have also paid into a fund designed to help them in the future.

EITC and mortgage deductions are a special case of their own. Money for nothing. Why not pee test for both as well?
 
SO...being on welfare is a CRIME?

That's more or less the goal. They want welfare recipients to forfeit their constitutional rights as a condition of receiving benefits. I'm as opposed to the welfare state as anyone, but this is the wrong way to address it.

And what "Constitutional right" are they being asked to forfeit . . . and DO be prepared to show me EXACTLY where in the Constitution said "right" appears.

Keep in mind that welfare recipients are being asked to do nothing that is not commonly required of working people every day in order to remain on their company's payroll.
 

Forum List

Back
Top