Finally, Florida Drug Test People On Welfare

[dblack]

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

You're confusing an employer/employee relationship with a taxpayer supported service. If you choose not to become an employee, you don't have to meet any employer's demands. But with a state service, we can't choose not to participate. Taxes aren't voluntary and we're required to pay into the welfare state whether we use it or not. You can choose not to apply for welfare when eligible, but you can't choose not to pay for it. What you're advocating is the usual state strategy of taking money from us by force (in the form of taxes) and then making us jump through hoops to get it back.

I'm going to keep bringing up the health care example as long as you all keep ignoring it. Because it's very likely to be the next step in the growth of state power. When the state takes over health care, will you be as excited about a list of intrusive requirements in order to see a doctor? Will it be ok for the state to require you to prove that you don't smoke, that you eat a healthy diet, that you exercise as they tell you, as prerequisites to receiving state health care that your taxes have already paid for?

 

[Wicked Jester]

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

You're confusing an employer/employee relationship with a taxpayer supported service. If you choose not to become an employee, you don't have to meet any employer's demands. But with a state service, we can't choose not to participate. Taxes aren't voluntary and we're required to pay into the welfare state whether we use it or not. You can choose not to apply for welfare when eligible, but you can't choose not to pay for it. What you're advocating is the usual state strategy of taking money from us by force (in the form of taxes) and then making us jump through hoops to get it back.

I'm going to keep bringing up the health care example as long as you all keep ignoring it. Because it's very likely to be the next step in the growth of state power. When the state takes over health care, will you be as excited about a list of intrusive requirements in order to see a doctor? Will it be ok for the state to require you to prove that you don't smoke, that you eat a healthy diet, that you exercise as they tell you, as prerequisites to receiving state health care that your taxes have already paid for?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, gosh, you were once inconvenienced in life, and therefore no standards should ever be enforced to protect the public's safety or an employer's interests in any way . . . because God forbid people should EVER have any inconvenience in life. Perfectly smooth sailing with no turbulence is guaranteed in the Constitution, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well then, let's be sure and never do anything that we can't have absolutely perfect at all times.

 

[Meister]

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.

Well, gosh, you were once inconvenienced in life, and therefore no standards should ever be enforced to protect the public's safety or an employer's interests in any way . . . because God forbid people should EVER have any inconvenience in life. Perfectly smooth sailing with no turbulence is guaranteed in the Constitution, right?

It's that warm fuzzy feeling we're all suppose to have.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I said "show", not "tell". Anyone can casually throw out numbers, son. SHOW me where the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee you the right to not take drug tests as a condition of welfare.

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.

Bullshit, and bullshit. One, there's no such thing as a "basic right to privacy". I dare you to find it anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution protects VERY SPECIFIC privacy rights, under VERY SPECIFIC circumstances.

Two, "innocent until proven guilty" appears nowhere in the Constitution at all. It's a good principle, to be sure, but applies only to criminal prosecution. It does NOT apply in any way to situations where no one is being found "guilty" in any legal sense. A drug test is no more than one in a long list of ways in which one must qualify for welfare (or a job, in many cases these days). And since EVERYONE applying for welfare must meet the exact same qualifications, there is no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

No one's talking about prosecuting them, so try to stick to reality, okay? There's no "basic rights" involved, because using drugs and keeping it a secret from everyone is far from a civil right, and receiving welfare benefits DEFINITELY isn't a civil right. They are only "being treated as defendants" if you're going to actually arrest them and put them on trial, which - as I said - no one is suggesting.

It's fascinating to those of us who accept being drug-free and being tested to that end as a routine part of our jobs to hear that we're "being treated as defendants" and "having our basic rights stripped". I'm frankly suspicious of anyone who thinks illegal drug use and keeping it a secret is a basic human right.

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.

In the case of welfare recipients, who are being given regular checks for the express purpose of replacing or supplementing their working income, government is DEFINITELY standing in place of an employer. That doesn't make it anyone's "master", any more than requiring prospective welfare recipients to meet other requirements for eligibility does. Application is voluntary, and anyone who does not wish to meet the eligibility requirements is free to choose not to apply.

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?

There's nothing "nanny state" about it. Nanny state is having a welfare program and the government handing out money in the first place. If we absolutely INSIST on doing such a thing, there's nothing unreasonable in requiring the recipients to at least make an effort to be upstanding, potentially employable citizens, rather than drugged-out slackers who will never be anything but a drain on society. It's as reasonable as setting requirements that they genuinely be in some sort of financial need.

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?"

Not the same thing. If, God forbid, we get stuck with socialized health care, it will be mandated onto everyone, rather than being an entitlement program for which one must meet certain qualifications. As such, it won't be as though we will have any ability to restrict who gets it or who doesn't, so there won't be much point in CONSERVATIVES saying a word about people's lifestyles. See, the difference is that liberals want to run people's lives. Conservatives pretty much want to let them run their own lives, and just don't want to have to pay for their decisions.

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.

I agree that we should work to minimize dependency on the state, and limiting it to people who have some shot of actually getting a job and becoming productive, rather than extending it to people who will never be worth the bullet to shoot them with unless they get off the drugs is a good start in my book.

 

[PattGarrett]

I think welfare should have a maximum term of say 18 months and after that then you are done with it and I also agree with the drug testing of recepients. However I do have a problem with the governor having conections to the clinics that won the bid.

I can't link because I don't have enough post's but you can google Rick Scott Solantic and there is a lot of controversy over it. He owned Solantic at the time that the company won the bid and stood to gain over 50 million of the deal. He supposedly sold out to a N.C. investor group about 10 several months ago, but still has stock in it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

You're confusing an employer/employee relationship with a taxpayer supported service. If you choose not to become an employee, you don't have to meet any employer's demands. But with a state service, we can't choose not to participate. Taxes aren't voluntary and we're required to pay into the welfare state whether we use it or not. You can choose not to apply for welfare when eligible, but you can't choose not to pay for it. What you're advocating is the usual state strategy of taking money from us by force (in the form of taxes) and then making us jump through hoops to get it back.

What does whether or not the taxpayers have a choice in paying have to do with anything, other than the fact that they have a right to put damned near any requirements they like on receiving benefits?

The operative point is that the PEOPLE BEING TESTED can choose whether or not to participate, same as a job applicant can. It's completely voluntary.

And if you're on welfare, you're almost certainly not "getting it back", because it's highly unlikely that you've contributed much of anything to "get back". On the off-chance that you WERE productive at one point in time . . . well, you're already jumping through hoops to get welfare, and don't let anyone tell you differently. Government assistance of any sort simply does not come fast or easy, and it never will.

Personally, I see the frustrating, demeaning red-tape maze as a powerful incentive for the people with even an iota of self-respect to get a fucking job and get away from welfare as fast as they can.

I'm going to keep bringing up the health care example as long as you all keep ignoring it. Because it's very likely to be the next step in the growth of state power. When the state takes over health care, will you be as excited about a list of intrusive requirements in order to see a doctor? Will it be ok for the state to require you to prove that you don't smoke, that you eat a healthy diet, that you exercise as they tell you, as prerequisites to receiving state health care that your taxes have already paid for?

Been there, done that question already.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I think welfare should have a maximum term of say 18 months and after that then you are done with it and I also agree with the drug testing of recepients. However I do have a problem with the governor having conections to the clinics that won the bid.

I can't link because I don't have enough post's but you can google Rick Scott Solantic and there is a lot of controversy over it. He owned Solantic at the time that the company won the bid and stood to gain over 50 million of the deal. He supposedly sold out to a N.C. investor group about 10 several months ago, but still has stock in it.

If it was the lowest bid, so what?

They still have a right to compete, regardless of who owned it at one time.

 

[dblack]

I said "show", not "tell".

You want pictures?? I don't think there's an illustrated version of the Constitution. You'll have to do some reading.

... there's no such thing as a "basic right to privacy". I dare you to find it anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution protects VERY SPECIFIC privacy rights, under VERY SPECIFIC circumstances.

Yeah. See, we're disagreeing on the fundamental way the Constitution works. You're going with the usual liberal line that we have no rights other than those specifically cited in the Constitution. The ninth amendment makes it pretty clear that's not how it's supposed to work. In any case, if that's how you see it, there's not really enough common ground for us to have a fruitful discussion on constitutional matters.

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?"

Not the same thing. If, God forbid, we get stuck with socialized health care, it will be mandated onto everyone, rather than being an entitlement program for which one must meet certain qualifications. As such, it won't be as though we will have any ability to restrict who gets it or who doesn't...

Wanna bet?

Sadly, I suspect we're going to find out. And I'll be very surprised if we aren't having exactly these same kinds of arguments then: "Why should my tax dollars be spent on cancer treatment for someone who smoked their whole life?", "Why should I have to pay for aids treatment for gays?", "Why should we have to provide expensive health care to fatsos who can't be bothered to put down the twinkie and exercise?"

I wonder which side of that argument you'll be on?

 

[hortysir]

So no food stamps for people on medications.


How does that help a cancer patient who needs some food stamps?

So you really ARE that big of a fucking idiOt

 

[hortysir]

You have heard of Florida's lousy child protective services?
they lose track of lots of kids.

That was a few cases, several years ago.

Foster children, sadly, fall through the cracks in the system all the time everywhere.

Did Ravi loan you her broad paintbrush?

 

[hortysir]

You have heard of Florida's lousy child protective services?
they lose track of lots of kids.

Except when they kill them.

"They" who, exactly?

 

[hortysir]

Glad to finally see some common sense being applied for those who want Welfare

The Republican governor of Florida has just signed a bill into law that will require recipients of welfare to take a drug test when applying for aid. The law went into effect on July 1, and requires applicants to pay for the test. If an applicant tests positive for drugs, a family member can receive their benefits to distribute to any dependent children. If welfare recipients pass, they can apply to have the cost of the drug test reimbursed.
New Florida Law Requires Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients | The Atlanta Post

Thank you for admitting you right wing slime LOVE intrusive, overbearing and BIG government.

Thanks for finally proving that it's the left-leaning Libtards that don't care about the welfare of the children

 

[dblack]

What does whether or not the taxpayers have a choice in paying have to do with anything[?]

Because these programs were voted on, and paid for by taxpayers under the assumption that they wouldn't have to 'pee in a cup', or be subjected to any other intrusive measures, to utilize them. It's the same reason it would be patently unfair to start means testing Social Security. It's bait and switch.

they [taxpayers] have a right to put damned near any requirements they like on receiving benefits

If that's your view, then they'd have the same right to put damned near any requirements they like on receiving health care (assuming that state takes that over), right?

The operative point is that the PEOPLE BEING TESTED can choose whether or not to participate, same as a job applicant can. It's completely voluntary.

Nope. Participation is a two way street. We're all forced to 'participate' in welfare by paying for it. Again, it would be like adding a bunch of new requirements preventing people from getting Social Security after they'd paid into it all their lives.

And if you're on welfare, you're almost certainly not "getting it back", because it's highly unlikely that you've contributed much of anything to "get back". ...

You have any stats on that? I'm sure there are 'lifers' on the welfare roles, but I've known a fair number of people who have utilized such programs and gone on to very productive lives - or lived very productive lives and then found themselves down and out and in need of such programs. In any case, I think this gets to the core of the conservative position on this issue. It's the usual self-righteous desire to lord it over people whom they disapprove of. And that's just ugly

 

[hortysir]

You DO realize that no one is entitled to an entitlement program, right??

It is completely voluntary.

Sorry about the "the assumption that they wouldn't have to 'pee in a cup'" argument.
Laws change all the time.
The crack-smoking leaches should have elected a more scum-sympathetic representative.
They're no different than the rest of us. If they don't like the law, elect someone to change it.

Meanwhile, you don't get to use my money to buy your drugs.

 

[Wicked Jester]

You DO realize that no one is entitled to an entitlement program, right??

It is completely voluntary.

Sorry about the "the assumption that they wouldn't have to 'pee in a cup'" argument.
Laws change all the time.
The crack-smoking leaches should have elected a more scum-sympathetic representative.
They're no different than the rest of us. If they don't like the law, elect someone to change it.

Meanwhile, you don't get to use my money to buy your drugs.

They shouldn't get the money to abuse and neglect their children, or to starve their children while they are buying and using drugs.

 

[hortysir]

Someone brought up cost early on in the thread.

Taxpayers only pay when the test comes back clean.
If the crack-whore comes back dirty she pays.

If it starts to cost us taxpayers too much that means we must have made progress and the problem is now small enough to not have to require drug testing

 

[dblack]

They shouldn't get the money to abuse and neglect their children, or to starve their children while they are buying and using drugs.

Agreed. They shouldn't be allowed to do these things. No one should. The good news is, these things are already illegal.

 

[Pekin]

They may be illegal but why should the government subsidize the illegal behavior. Is that not counter productive?

Welfare for druggies promotes illegal behavior as does food stamps and subsidized housing. It gives them money to spend on drugs and the money they make through illegal activities or under the table jobs they can spend on more drugs because we the tax payers are already taking care of their basic needs. We have already taken care of the food and housing.