Finally, Florida Drug Test People On Welfare

[Cecilie1200]

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.

So stay clean for a few days and get a haircut.

Haircuts have nothing to do with your follicles, you vapid trollop. You're just fucking ignorant about even the most ordinary, everyday sort of information, aren't you? How the hell do you even find the "ON" button for your computer?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Ooh, a neg rep from the inarguably dumbest, most vacant-skulled twat on the board. HOWEVER will I survive the heartbreak and soldier on?!

 

[chanel]

Exactly. And in most professions, anyone suspected of drug use must submit to a test. The only ones who fear it are the users. But even they understand there may be a consequence. Consequences are something people with no moral compass can't comprehend. Sad actually.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The only thing we're choking on is our laughter at you actually being dumb enough to think the ACLU is a reliable source!!!

Just because YOU choose to be a gullible little fluffer for every left-wing con artist that wanders in and drops trou at you doesn't mean the rest of us are.

 

[Ravi]

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.

So stay clean for a few days and get a haircut.

Haircuts have nothing to do with your follicles, you vapid trollop. You're just fucking ignorant about even the most ordinary, everyday sort of information, aren't you? How the hell do you even find the "ON" button for your computer?

So I guess you shave your head when you go for your drug test and make them dig out the follicle with a knife? I'm sure that you enjoy it.

 

[Ravi]

Well, this is interesting.

8. How soon after use can a drug be detected in hair?
It takes approximately 4-5 days from the time of drug use for the affected hair to grow above the scalp. Body hair growth rates are generally slower and cannot be utilized to determine a timeframe of drug use.

9. What is the shortest time period that can be evaluated?
The minimum time period is approximately two weeks (1/4 inch). Body hair can be used if head hair is too short for a test. If body hair is used the timeframe represented by the test is approximately one year, due to the different growth pattern in hair below the neck.

11. Does body hair give the same type of results as head hair?
Yes, body hair can be used to test for the five standard drug classes, though body hair growth patterns are different than head hair. Most body hair is replaced within approximately one year. This means a test done with body hair will be reported as drug usage during approximately a one year timeframe.

Omega Laboratories - Hair Testing FAQ

That means that if you took a drug anytime in the past year you are disqualified? In other words, if you've cleaned yourself up you must still wait an entire year before being eligible for food stamps.

The rightwingloons have gone beyond a simple pee test and are going to force people to have their pubic hair sampled???

 

[Cecilie1200]

So stay clean for a few days and get a haircut.

Haircuts have nothing to do with your follicles, you vapid trollop. You're just fucking ignorant about even the most ordinary, everyday sort of information, aren't you? How the hell do you even find the "ON" button for your computer?

So I guess you shave your head when you go for your drug test and make them dig out the follicle with a knife? I'm sure that you enjoy it.

No, you dumb XXXX, I simply give them the sample and get the fuck on with my life. I have no need to fear and try to beat drug tests, because I'M not stupid enough to muck up my body and life with illegal drugs in the first place, clearly unlike the people YOU know.

But for the record, if they want a hair follicle, you DO have other hair on your body besides that on your head . . . unless you were planning to bathe in Nair beforehand, which I think would be a giveaway.

 

[Ravi]

Haircuts have nothing to do with your follicles, you vapid trollop. You're just fucking ignorant about even the most ordinary, everyday sort of information, aren't you? How the hell do you even find the "ON" button for your computer?

So I guess you shave your head when you go for your drug test and make them dig out the follicle with a knife? I'm sure that you enjoy it.

No, you dumb XXXX, I simply give them the sample and get the fuck on with my life. I have no need to fear and try to beat drug tests, because I'M not stupid enough to muck up my body and life with illegal drugs in the first place, clearly unlike the people YOU know.

But for the record, if they want a hair follicle, you DO have other hair on your body besides that on your head . . . unless you were planning to bathe in Nair beforehand, which I think would be a giveaway.

Do you praise Jesus with that mouth? Or do you dress up like him for your drag balls.



So now you're telling me that it would be illegal to wax my body before a drug test.

Awesome!

 

[Cecilie1200]

So I guess you shave your head when you go for your drug test and make them dig out the follicle with a knife? I'm sure that you enjoy it.

No, you dumb XXXX, I simply give them the sample and get the fuck on with my life. I have no need to fear and try to beat drug tests, because I'M not stupid enough to muck up my body and life with illegal drugs in the first place, clearly unlike the people YOU know.

But for the record, if they want a hair follicle, you DO have other hair on your body besides that on your head . . . unless you were planning to bathe in Nair beforehand, which I think would be a giveaway.

Do you praise Jesus with that mouth? Or do you dress up like him for your drag balls.



So now you're telling me that it would be illegal to wax my body before a drug test.

Awesome!

No, XXXX, it's not illegal to be unable to give a sample. It just disqualifies you automatically from whatever you were applying for. So your oh-so-brilliant plan to "beat" the drug test just beat YOU out of the job - or, in this case, welfare - that you wanted in the first place. Congratulations. I guess that shows us all how intelligent illegal drug use makes you.

If Jesus has a problem with how I talk, I feel certain that He can find a better spokesperson than a brain-damaged, hypocritical liberal twat to tell me about it. Hell, the traditional jawbone of an ass would be more credible. So please don't flatter yourself that you speak for God, OR that you have any moral credibility with which to speak to me on your own.

Like how the champions of "tolerance and diversity" can't wait to trot out people's personal lives and criticize them every chance they get, though. Must make the gays feel really good to have such an openminded person as you on their side.

 

[tonystewart1]

I dont like drug testing period. I have not had a drink or a beer in 15 years and no pill or other illegal drugs since highschool. About a year ago I was the victim of a false postive on a random drug test. I demanded a retest of the same sample and that came back clean. I had to pay for the retest and lost 2 weeks wages waiting for the results.

 

[Mr.Nick]

A) drugs should be legal

B) welfare fucks should be focusing on getting job rather than their next fix and if they're living on the taxpayers coin they should be booted off the welfare program if they're using "drugs."

If welfare fucks cant support themselves then the taxpayers shouldn't be supporting their habit.

If you cant provide food for yourself you shouldn't be buying drugs or using them.

I have no problem if a working man wants to use drugs - thats that individuals choice. If he can use drugs and put food on the table at the same time who really cares??

If a person wants to use drugs and can't put food on the table then the productive taxpaying public has no moral reason to support that individual, and if they have children they should be taken from them.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I dont like drug testing period. I have not had a drink or a beer in 15 years and no pill or other illegal drugs since highschool. About a year ago I was the victim of a false postive on a random drug test. I demanded a retest of the same sample and that came back clean. I had to pay for the retest and lost 2 weeks wages waiting for the results.

I'm a libertarian and I believe drug testing those who rely on society to support them is fine.

There is no problem with standards for social programs... Welfare is not a "human right" its a fucking social program and if you want it then you must live up to the required standards.

Remember its the taxpayers NOT the government that is paying for welfare fools to live for free.

 

[tonystewart1]

I dont like drug testing period. I have not had a drink or a beer in 15 years and no pill or other illegal drugs since highschool. About a year ago I was the victim of a false postive on a random drug test. I demanded a retest of the same sample and that came back clean. I had to pay for the retest and lost 2 weeks wages waiting for the results.

I'm a libertarian and I believe drug testing those who rely on society to support them is fine.

There is no problem with standards for social programs... Welfare is not a "human right" its a fucking social program and if you want it then you must live up to the required standards.

Remember its the taxpayers NOT the government that is paying for welfare fools to live for free.

I have no problem in making sure welfare recipients are not doing drugs what I have a problem with is beilieving that every drug test is accurate. They are not. False positives and false negatives.

 

[Ravi]

No, you dumb XXXX, I simply give them the sample and get the fuck on with my life. I have no need to fear and try to beat drug tests, because I'M not stupid enough to muck up my body and life with illegal drugs in the first place, clearly unlike the people YOU know.

But for the record, if they want a hair follicle, you DO have other hair on your body besides that on your head . . . unless you were planning to bathe in Nair beforehand, which I think would be a giveaway.

Do you praise Jesus with that mouth? Or do you dress up like him for your drag balls.



So now you're telling me that it would be illegal to wax my body before a drug test.

Awesome!

No, XXXX, it's not illegal to be unable to give a sample. It just disqualifies you automatically from whatever you were applying for. So your oh-so-brilliant plan to "beat" the drug test just beat YOU out of the job - or, in this case, welfare - that you wanted in the first place. Congratulations. I guess that shows us all how intelligent illegal drug use makes you.

If Jesus has a problem with how I talk, I feel certain that He can find a better spokesperson than a brain-damaged, hypocritical liberal twat to tell me about it. Hell, the traditional jawbone of an ass would be more credible. So please don't flatter yourself that you speak for God, OR that you have any moral credibility with which to speak to me on your own.

Like how the champions of "tolerance and diversity" can't wait to trot out people's personal lives and criticize them every chance they get, though. Must make the gays feel really good to have such an openminded person as you on their side.

I never championed tolerance and diversity. You're welcome to hate anyone you like, you adulterous skank.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Alot of states have time limits don't know if they are enforced though, I know in Iowa the limit for welfare is 24 months however food stamps is a completely different program than welfare, there is no time limit on that.

When I was living in Norfolk years ago - back during my Navy days - the public housing downtown - incredible. People hanging around, doing nothing. A Cadillac in every parking space. Boozing it up. Hanging out. Looking for work ? Hell no.

Welfare careers breed welfare careers.
I woman I used to deliver mail to was getting her welfare check monthly along with 18 year old daughter with 3 kids....it pissed me off to no end.
Another lady was getting 5 checks a month with different names on each check. I turned her ass in (could have cost me my job for doing that) Two months later she moved out.

Yeah, I had a lady come into my restaurant a few years ago to apply for a front of the house position....She was nice, well dressed, claimed to have experience....And then she asked that if she got the job, could she just be paid in cash stright up, and if I did so, she would work for less than the hourly rate....I asked her why, she stated that she wouldn't be able to collect welfare any longer for she and her four kids if she started collecting a pay check......I said Ok, let me see what I can do, when can you start?......Aftter she left I watched her go out and get into her Lincoln Town car, stuffed with her kids and drive away......I then called welfare, let them know what happened....They asked if I could fax over her application........About three months later I get a call, it's that same bitch friggin' screaming at me for turning her in, and that she now faced serious jail time....I said that's not my damn problem, good luck to ya', bye!

Turns out she was collecting multiple checks under different names. Was still collecting her dead mothers social security checks and cashing them, and was dealing coke and meth out of her house.

 

[yidnar]

well we know who's on drugs in this thread DAMN !! bwaaahaaahaaa the liberal junkies sure don't like drug testing.

 

[dblack]

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.

Fourth and fourteenth amendments, for starters. The policy demands, as a condition of using a program we all pay for, that we give up our basic rights to privacy and grossly violates the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If there is evidence that welfare recipients are committing crimes, fine - prosecute them and revoke their benefits. But you're arguing that they should be stripped of their basic rights as a condition of eligibility for welfare, that they should be treated as defendants who must prove their innocence before they can use a state service. That's a dangerous precedent to set.

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.

The government is not our employer. It's meant to be the servant of the public, not our master.

I know many conservatives support this measure, when they might otherwise be against such nanny-state provisions, because of their opposition to the welfare state (which I share). But I think their tendency to vilify welfare recipients is clouding their judgement, and driving them to unwittingly support very bad policies. If the state can withhold welfare services to us unless we agree to give up our constitutional rights, what other services might they try this with?

What happens if and when we get socialized health care? When we're all paying taxes to the state and dependent on state policy for our health care? Can't you see similar policies demanding that we take tests to prove we haven't been smoking? People will make similar arguments to what we're seeing here: "Why should we pay for the health care of people with unhealthy personal habits?"

We should work to minimize dependency on the state, both for the benefit of the nation and those lured into such dependencies. But using bad policy as justification for more bad policy in response is just dumb.

 

[Wicked Jester]

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.

Fourth and fourteenth amendments, for starters. The policy demands, as a condition of using a program we all pay for, that we give up our basic rights to privacy and grossly violates the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If there is evidence that welfare recipients are committing crimes, fine - prosecute them and revoke their benefits. But you're arguing that they should be stripped of their basic rights as a condition of eligibility for welfare, that they should be treated as defendants who must prove their innocence before they can use a state service. That's a dangerous precedent to set.

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.

The government is not our employer. It's meant to be the servant of the public, not our master.

I know many conservatives support this measure, when they might otherwise be against such nanny-state provisions, because of their opposition to the welfare state (which I share). But I think their tendency to vilify welfare recipients is clouding their judgement, and driving them to unwittingly support very bad policies. If the state can withhold welfare services to us unless we agree to give up our constitutional rights, what other services might they try this with?

What happens if and when we get socialized health care? When we're all paying taxes to the state and dependent on state policy for our health care? Can't you see similar policies demanding that we take tests to prove we haven't been smoking? People will make similar arguments to what we're seeing here: "Why should we pay for the health care of people with unhealthy personal habits?"

We should work to minimize dependency on the state, both for the benefit of the nation and those lured into such dependencies. But using bad policy as justification for more bad policy in response is just dumb.

A welfare check is a government issued check, meant to provide substinence for people in need. To ensure that children are fed and with a roof over their head in a safe environment........It is not a check that is issued so scumbags can go out and get their narcotics or alcohol fix, while the kids sit neglected and hungry through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.

Military pay checks are government issued also. They are pissed tested regularly for obvious reasons.......You got a problem with that also?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

JAMES FOX: Drug testing: Unwise and legally suspect

06/06/2011 9:08 AM

By JAMES FOX JR.

During a flurry of activity ending the 2011 session, the Florida Legislature passed HB 353, mandating drug testing of all adult applicants for Florida cash assistance. Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law last week.

Florida joins a growing list of states that are further eroding the basic liberties of our fellow citizens simply because they are poor. This is both bad policy and unconstitutional. It also reveals the deep hypocrisy of legislators who rail against governmental interference with citizens’ liberties while invading the most basic of liberties — the liberty to be free from the government searching your body without probable cause.

For many people, testing welfare applicants for drug use sounds like a good idea. As bill sponsor Rep. Jimmie Smith said, why should tax dollars go to supporting drug habits rather than feeding poor children?

But this appeal is based on incorrect and biased assumptions about drug use among the poor. In fact, recipients of welfare use illegal drugs at about the same rate as the general population. The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found that the “proportions of welfare recipients using, abusing, or dependant on alcohol or illicit drugs are consistent with proportions of both the adult U.S. population and adults who do not receive welfare.”

Mandatory drug testing is costly and ineffective. Drug tests cost an average of $42. The Florida statute forces the poverty-stricken applicant to pay this cost up front, forcing parents with an annual income of less than $4,000, or about $80 per week, to find the cash up front to apply for benefits — instead of paying for food for their kids.

The Legislature eased this burden with an amendment permitting those who test negative to be paid back in their first benefits check. This does not help the family who had no money to pay for the test in the first place. With 90 percent of applicants likely to test negative, the state will end up paying over half a million dollars for testing, further increasing welfare expenditures.

This cost is especially foolhardy given that drug tests have problems with false positives and false negatives, and several harder drugs are not easily detected by standard tests. Other states, such as Michigan and Oklahoma, have used well-designed, inexpensive written questionnaires that are 94 percent effective in detecting drug and alcohol use. Florida should follow their lead.

More troubling than the cost and ineffectiveness of blanket drug tests is the violation of the civil liberties of Florida’s poor families. No liberty is more basic than the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. This is why the U.S. Supreme Court has found unconstitutional mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, despite the social benefits gained from barring drug users from running for elected office, and why a similar welfare drug-test program was found unconstitutional in Michigan.

Ironically, the Florida Republican Party, which opposes federal health care legislation as unconstitutional, has adopted a welfare law far more likely to be found unconstitutional.

This new law also reveals hypocrisy on two levels. First, if stopping the expenditure of government money on drug use is the concern, then other recipients of public money should be tested. But the legislature rejected a Democratic amendment that required drug testing of Bright Futures scholars — even though college-age citizens comprise the one demographic group that we know uses drugs at the highest rate (about 1 in 5).

Second, were personal liberty and small government really the polestars of Florida Republicans, they would not pass a law using government power to force the needy to give up a basic liberty. The power of government to “buy up” rights is surely one of the main dangers of big government.

Such contradictions reveal that it is not the personal liberty of all citizens that some politicians favor, but rather the freedom of the political elite to ride the backs of the poor.

--

James W. Fox Jr. is a professor of law at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla. He has written on the history and theory of democratic citizenship and poverty and on contract theory in national legal journals across the country. His most recent research focuses on the intersection of civil society and public sphere theory.

JAMES FOX: Drug testing: Unwise and legally suspect Northwest Florida Daily News

It’s also telling how the right makes this ‘issue’ such a priority, given the more serious, pressing issues facing the Nation. Obviously it directs attention away from the fact the right has no answers to the Nation’s problems; and the poor are indeed an easy target.

Of course drug testing welfare applicants won’t create jobs, reduce the deficit, or revive the housing market, but it must make conservatives feel good to know fellow Americans are being subjected to a degrading, un-Constitutional process.

The irony of this, of course, is the fact that most apply for welfare because they have nowhere else to go, victims of an economic disaster brought about by these very same republicans who wrote and advocate the drug testing law.

 

[yidnar]

JAMES FOX: Drug testing: Unwise and legally suspect

06/06/2011 9:08 AM

By JAMES FOX JR.

During a flurry of activity ending the 2011 session, the Florida Legislature passed HB 353, mandating drug testing of all adult applicants for Florida cash assistance. Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law last week.

Florida joins a growing list of states that are further eroding the basic liberties of our fellow citizens simply because they are poor. This is both bad policy and unconstitutional. It also reveals the deep hypocrisy of legislators who rail against governmental interference with citizens’ liberties while invading the most basic of liberties — the liberty to be free from the government searching your body without probable cause.

For many people, testing welfare applicants for drug use sounds like a good idea. As bill sponsor Rep. Jimmie Smith said, why should tax dollars go to supporting drug habits rather than feeding poor children?

But this appeal is based on incorrect and biased assumptions about drug use among the poor. In fact, recipients of welfare use illegal drugs at about the same rate as the general population. The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found that the “proportions of welfare recipients using, abusing, or dependant on alcohol or illicit drugs are consistent with proportions of both the adult U.S. population and adults who do not receive welfare.”

Mandatory drug testing is costly and ineffective. Drug tests cost an average of $42. The Florida statute forces the poverty-stricken applicant to pay this cost up front, forcing parents with an annual income of less than $4,000, or about $80 per week, to find the cash up front to apply for benefits — instead of paying for food for their kids.

The Legislature eased this burden with an amendment permitting those who test negative to be paid back in their first benefits check. This does not help the family who had no money to pay for the test in the first place. With 90 percent of applicants likely to test negative, the state will end up paying over half a million dollars for testing, further increasing welfare expenditures.

This cost is especially foolhardy given that drug tests have problems with false positives and false negatives, and several harder drugs are not easily detected by standard tests. Other states, such as Michigan and Oklahoma, have used well-designed, inexpensive written questionnaires that are 94 percent effective in detecting drug and alcohol use. Florida should follow their lead.

More troubling than the cost and ineffectiveness of blanket drug tests is the violation of the civil liberties of Florida’s poor families. No liberty is more basic than the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. This is why the U.S. Supreme Court has found unconstitutional mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, despite the social benefits gained from barring drug users from running for elected office, and why a similar welfare drug-test program was found unconstitutional in Michigan.

Ironically, the Florida Republican Party, which opposes federal health care legislation as unconstitutional, has adopted a welfare law far more likely to be found unconstitutional.

This new law also reveals hypocrisy on two levels. First, if stopping the expenditure of government money on drug use is the concern, then other recipients of public money should be tested. But the legislature rejected a Democratic amendment that required drug testing of Bright Futures scholars — even though college-age citizens comprise the one demographic group that we know uses drugs at the highest rate (about 1 in 5).

Second, were personal liberty and small government really the polestars of Florida Republicans, they would not pass a law using government power to force the needy to give up a basic liberty. The power of government to “buy up” rights is surely one of the main dangers of big government.

Such contradictions reveal that it is not the personal liberty of all citizens that some politicians favor, but rather the freedom of the political elite to ride the backs of the poor.

--

James W. Fox Jr. is a professor of law at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla. He has written on the history and theory of democratic citizenship and poverty and on contract theory in national legal journals across the country. His most recent research focuses on the intersection of civil society and public sphere theory.

JAMES FOX: Drug testing: Unwise and legally suspect Northwest Florida Daily News

It’s also telling how the right makes this ‘issue’ such a priority, given the more serious, pressing issues facing the Nation. Obviously it directs attention away from the fact the right has no answers to the Nation’s problems; and the poor are indeed an easy target.

Of course drug testing welfare applicants won’t create jobs, reduce the deficit, or revive the housing market, but it must make conservatives feel good to know fellow Americans are being subjected to a degrading, un-Constitutional process.

The irony of this, of course, is the fact that most apply for welfare because they have nowhere else to go, victims of an economic disaster brought about by these very same republicans who wrote and advocate the drug testing law.

you better drop that joint you gotta test coming up!!