Florida - Want Welfare? Take a Urinalysis

yes they are.....who is this gonna hurt in the long run.....kids......much of welfare is aid to dependent kids....

republicans dont want abortion but they dont mind starving kids
 
I think many other States will. Florida is just making it known that it is no longer a Welfare-Friendly State. This will encourage much of their Entitlement crowd to leave the State and relocate to more Welfare-Friendly States like California & New York. They have to thin the herd. The Entitlement crowd has grown to record levels. This type of Legislation is just a friendly nudge encouraging the Entitlement crowd to leave Florida. You want Welfare? Take the Drug test. If you don't want to take the Drug test? No Welfare and maybe leave Florida. These Laws serve a real & tangible purpose. Many more States will follow Florida's lead on this.
 
In our city Goodwill provides drug screening services and charges the city $50 a pop.

The welfare recipient cannot afford the $50 buck so who pays for it? the city.

So the money the state spends on screening welfare recipients for drugs every month eats away and may possibly become more expensive than just giving them the money in the first place.

do the math. 100 people screened at $50 a head equals $5,000 per month. For a year that comes to $60,000. How long is the wait period for results?

This is just a bad idea all the way around.
 
Many States are just looking for ways to thin their swelling Entitlement herds. This Law will encourage some Welfare recipients in Florida to leave the State and look for greener Welfare pastures elsewhere. And that's what these Laws are all about.
 
yes they are.....who is this gonna hurt in the long run.....kids......much of welfare is aid to dependent kids....

republicans dont want abortion but they dont mind starving kids

Your logical fallacy is your assumption that in the end kids are the responsibility of government, not the parents. Well taxpayers, do you want to pay for the abortion or the food, take your pick. It's your kid!!!!!!!

Um...no it's not. Now as a member of society it is my job to help kids, but unlike you I take that responsibility for myself. For example, when I lived in NY I wouldn't give the homeless money, but if I had time I bought them a meal. I had no objection to their boozing with their body, but I didn't feel charity was my paying for it. With government, they pretty much maximize the idiot in charity.
 
In our city Goodwill provides drug screening services and charges the city $50 a pop.

The welfare recipient cannot afford the $50 buck so who pays for it? the city.

So the money the state spends on screening welfare recipients for drugs every month eats away and may possibly become more expensive than just giving them the money in the first place.

do the math. 100 people screened at $50 a head equals $5,000 per month. For a year that comes to $60,000. How long is the wait period for results?

This is just a bad idea all the way around.

Personally I'd love a job where my only responsibility is not taking drugs. But as for you, you count the cost of the drug screening, but not the savings from not giving checks to people who fail it? Liberal math...
 
Urine tests cost little to manufacture.

Funny how cops carry around virtually the same pack to determine if drugs are legit or not...
 
In our city Goodwill provides drug screening services and charges the city $50 a pop.

The welfare recipient cannot afford the $50 buck so who pays for it? the city.

So the money the state spends on screening welfare recipients for drugs every month eats away and may possibly become more expensive than just giving them the money in the first place.

do the math. 100 people screened at $50 a head equals $5,000 per month. For a year that comes to $60,000. How long is the wait period for results?

This is just a bad idea all the way around.

Personally I'd love a job where my only responsibility is not taking drugs. But as for you, you count the cost of the drug screening, but not the savings from not giving checks to people who fail it? Liberal math...


You are missing the point, It is too easy to beat a drug test. Cocaine is only in the system for a few days, Marijuanna can be masked, Opiates I'm not sure on but the point is paying for drug screening that can be beat in the first place is pointless. The honest ones who actually need welfare are not the one we are after. The ones we are after are the ones who know how to beat the system, they do it all the time.
 
Last edited:
yes they are.....who is this gonna hurt in the long run.....kids......much of welfare is aid to dependent kids....

republicans dont want abortion but they dont mind starving kids

you are the dummie.. so we feed ma and pa's kids and they get to spend all their dough on drugs and that's really good for kids, well fed kids abused by drugged up parents/ if you liberals had the thinking ability beyond the brain of a knat.. and then there's why should I take money that I coud use for the betterment of my kids and grand kids and give it to people who take drugs.. answer us that whydonchya?
 
In our city Goodwill provides drug screening services and charges the city $50 a pop.

The welfare recipient cannot afford the $50 buck so who pays for it? the city.

So the money the state spends on screening welfare recipients for drugs every month eats away and may possibly become more expensive than just giving them the money in the first place.

do the math. 100 people screened at $50 a head equals $5,000 per month. For a year that comes to $60,000. How long is the wait period for results?

This is just a bad idea all the way around.

Personally I'd love a job where my only responsibility is not taking drugs. But as for you, you count the cost of the drug screening, but not the savings from not giving checks to people who fail it? Liberal math...


You are missing the point, It is too easy to beat a drug test. Cocaine is only in the system for a few days, Marijuanna can be masked, Opiates I'm not sure on but the point is paying for drug screening that can be beat in the first place is pointless. The honest ones who actually need welfare are not the one we are after. The ones we are after are the ones who know how to beat the system, they do it all the time.

So if anyone ever can beat the screening then we should sack the whole idea? Most criminals get caught because they are stupid. Ever noticed how many millionaire athletes who have far more to lose and far more at their disposal to "beat" a drug test fail them? And you think welfare recipients in the richest country int he history of man who can't get a job are a bunch of Moriarty's? Sure they are. OK, a few will get through. I'll concede that. But it's no argument to not do it.
 
Personally I'd love a job where my only responsibility is not taking drugs. But as for you, you count the cost of the drug screening, but not the savings from not giving checks to people who fail it? Liberal math...


You are missing the point, It is too easy to beat a drug test. Cocaine is only in the system for a few days, Marijuanna can be masked, Opiates I'm not sure on but the point is paying for drug screening that can be beat in the first place is pointless. The honest ones who actually need welfare are not the one we are after. The ones we are after are the ones who know how to beat the system, they do it all the time.

So if anyone ever can beat the screening then we should sack the whole idea? Most criminals get caught because they are stupid. Ever noticed how many millionaire athletes who have far more to lose and far more at their disposal to "beat" a drug test fail them? And you think welfare recipients in the richest country int he history of man who can't get a job are a bunch of Moriarty's? Sure they are. OK, a few will get through. I'll concede that. But it's no argument to not do it.

I worked administering said drug tests for six months. IMO, pointless.
 
In our city Goodwill provides drug screening services and charges the city $50 a pop.

The welfare recipient cannot afford the $50 buck so who pays for it? the city.

So the money the state spends on screening welfare recipients for drugs every month eats away and may possibly become more expensive than just giving them the money in the first place.

do the math. 100 people screened at $50 a head equals $5,000 per month. For a year that comes to $60,000. How long is the wait period for results?

This is just a bad idea all the way around.

nice try,, but it's not necessary to screen everyone every time.. RANDOM drug testing is the answer..It's a very powerful incentive to stay clean,, the not knowing,, so it comes down to do you want your welfare check/food stamps? or do you want your drugs,, cause you ain't getting both. There's not one logical reason on God's very green earth to take from me and mine and give to people who squander theirs on drugs. NOPE NOPE NOPE
 

Forum List

Back
Top