Welfare applicants decline to take drug test, fueling debate over new law

[Rozman]

Next the lefties here will say it's racially motivated and that these folks civil rights are being violated because they are being asked to take a drug test in order to get assistance.

 

[The T]

Being mandatory or not is not the issue - just because some Americans are poor is not "reasonable cause" that they are all drug users.

If receiving "taxpayers dollars" is the criteria, then why aren't ALL individuals on the government payroll, including the president, his/her staff, members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, etc. subject to the same rules.

That would open up a constitutional "can-of-worms" of those who would resent having "big government" intrude into their personal life without "reasonable cause."

Should Doctors, Teachers, Nurses, Firemen Policemen, truck drivers be drug tested?

"Doctors, Teachers, Nurses, Firemen Policemen, truck drivers" are all in positions of added responsibility when it comes to safety of the public. Many are already on government payrolls, and those who aren't are subject to government licencing.

"Drug testing" wellfare recipients is an easy target - how about "drug testing" everyone who gets a government "tax cut" - that would prove interesting!

Another idiot. WHY on Earth would anyone that pays taxes...and keeping more of what they earn require such a thing?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Idiot.

That's all that you can say? I mean, I'm using your exact line of reasoning. I guess that makes you an idiot too, eh?

 

[Rozman]

"Drug testing" wellfare recipients is an easy target - how about "drug testing" everyone who gets a government "tax cut" - that would prove interesting!

Another fine example posted by a lefty who believes that money we earned is not really ours.
It really belongs to the government and we cheat them out of what is rightfully theirs every time we get paid.

I can't believe how many on the left have such an issue with Americans wanting to keep as much of our money as possible.

 

[The T]

"Drug testing" wellfare recipients is an easy target - how about "drug testing" everyone who gets a government "tax cut" - that would prove interesting!

Another fine example posted by a lefty who believes that money we earned is not really ours.
It really belongs to the government and we cheat them out of what is rightfully theirs every time we get paid.

I can't believe how many on the left have such an issue with Americans wanting to keep as much of our money as possible.

Probably the same sort of mentality that belives companies exist soley to give people jobs...

 

[Warrior102]

Nearly 1,600 Fla. welfare applicants decline to take drug test, fueling debate over new law

MIAMI — State figures show that hundreds of welfare applicants in Florida have declined to take drug tests that have been required for the assistance since mid-July.
Thirty-two applicants failed the test, 7,028 passed and 1,597 didn’t take it, according figures released Tuesday the Department of Children and Families. People who decline to take the test aren’t required to explain.

Proponents of the law have suggested applicants would be deterred because they knew they would test positive. Critics say applicants may not have taken the test because they couldn’t afford the fee that can be as much as $35 or didn’t have easy access to a testing facility.

Not sure how I feel about this.

are they doing alcohol testing, too?

either way... are you going to starve people for smoking a joint? pure harassment, imo.

Alcohol is an illegal drug?

What next - ? Tobacco?

If you're smoking/taking something illegal, you shouldn't be entitled to law abiding taxpayer's dollars.

 

[Iridescence]

Nearly 1,600 Fla. welfare applicants decline to take drug test, fueling debate over new law

MIAMI — State figures show that hundreds of welfare applicants in Florida have declined to take drug tests that have been required for the assistance since mid-July.
Thirty-two applicants failed the test, 7,028 passed and 1,597 didn’t take it, according figures released Tuesday the Department of Children and Families. People who decline to take the test aren’t required to explain.

Proponents of the law have suggested applicants would be deterred because they knew they would test positive. Critics say applicants may not have taken the test because they couldn’t afford the fee that can be as much as $35 or didn’t have easy access to a testing facility.

Not sure how I feel about this.

I could almost be about the same... in not having an opinion yet but some things do bother me at the onset of this.

ONE: Poor people are sometimes most obviously the farmed ones. What does that mean? That means that sometimes 'we' that fall within or under the poverty levels within our states are left to self-medicating or coming up with our own healthcare alternatives. Yes, sadly, that does sometimes mean tapping into the yet to be legal things...

TWO: The classification that poor people deserve to be tested. This is sometimes a biggy because many poor people genuinely have no clue what the testing is really about. Does poor mean ignorant? I don't mean such, I mean that they may not be exposed to the things in which the corporations examining the test results are looking for.

THREE: A HORRID waste of money. Yep... another one of 'those' things deemed necessary by the higher officials.

Is drug usage and/or alcoholism a problematic issue in the given area(s)? Is gang violence? What about Domestic Violence? Seriously? Before I would completely support this kind of testing it seems so many more questions should be sufficiently answered. It is ONE thing to have known drug usage and/or alcoholism within area(s) and quite another to have problematic violence issues potentially stemming from such things.

I don't have these thoughts from ignorance or lack of exposure. My experience and exposures have taught me that there can be and HAS BEEN much hope in these supposedly bad and/or disdainful habits for some individuals who have them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Or maybe, more logically under your premises, drugs are TOO EXPENSIVE in the first place for anyone who falls into the income qualifications for public assistance.

Do you think cocaine and heroin should be subsidized by the government, you know, for the needy?

 

[The T]

Or maybe, more logically under your premises, drugs are TOO EXPENSIVE in the first place for anyone who falls into the income qualifications for public assistance.

Do you think cocaine and heroin should be subsidized by the government, you know, for the needy?

Indeed...I thought the Gubmint had a drug war in progress...

 

[Care4all]

Should Doctors, Teachers, Nurses, Firemen Policemen, truck drivers be drug tested?

"Doctors, Teachers, Nurses, Firemen Policemen, truck drivers" are all in positions of added responsibility when it comes to safety of the public. Many are already on government payrolls, and those who aren't are subject to government licencing.

"Drug testing" wellfare recipients is an easy target - how about "drug testing" everyone who gets a government "tax cut" - that would prove interesting!

Another idiot. WHY on Earth would anyone that pays taxes...and keeping more of what they earn require such a thing?

because you are letting them keep their tax monies by giving a certain group a deduction or credit while NOT giving another person a credit to reduce their taxes? is that fair?

the gvt has no right to know what anyone does on their time off....everyone is innocent until proven guilty and that is how it should stay....imo. Why in the world would you want to give the gvt so much power over us????????????? the constitution sure didn't want to do that....

 

[The T]

"Doctors, Teachers, Nurses, Firemen Policemen, truck drivers" are all in positions of added responsibility when it comes to safety of the public. Many are already on government payrolls, and those who aren't are subject to government licencing.

"Drug testing" wellfare recipients is an easy target - how about "drug testing" everyone who gets a government "tax cut" - that would prove interesting!

Another idiot. WHY on Earth would anyone that pays taxes...and keeping more of what they earn require such a thing?

because you are letting them keep their tax monies by giving a certain group a deduction or credit while NOT giving another person a credit to reduce their taxes? is that fair?

the gvt has no right to know what anyone does on their time off....everyone is innocent until proven guilty and that is how it should stay....imo. Why in the world would you want to give the gvt so much power over us????????????? the constitution sure didn't want to do that....

What do YOU know of the Constitution? And does the Constitution address welfare and moochers? No?

I didn't think so.

 

[The T]

Society has every right to demand limits be set when they are footing the bill. The moochers should be thankful.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Do you think cocaine and heroin should be subsidized by the government, you know, for the needy?

Why in the world would you even propose a question like that? Nobody has even suggested anything like that, it has nothing to do with the discussion. Is this your M.O., to randomly make comments and ask questions as if to imply people who disagree with you have said outlandish things that they never said at all? You know what, don't answer. Get on topic or stay on the sidelines.

 

[Againsheila]

What is a drug test going to prove? and why is it relevant to receiving welfare? If you're on drugs your kids dont have hunger?

If you're on drugs, the money you get from the taxpayers is paying for them when it should be going to support your kids.

That said, I don't think they should be required to pay $35 for the test or to travel somewhere to get the test. If the government wants them tested, they should go to them.

 

[Political Junky]

An explanation as to why Gov. Scott wants to drug test these people.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Oskd9PO2w]Hartmann: How to stop the Florida welfare drug tests? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Inthemiddle]

Society has every right to demand limits be set when they are footing the bill. The moochers should be thankful.

The constitution also prohibits unreasonable searches. Also, if you feel this way, why are you opposed to my suggestion for STD testing to ensure that food stamps aren't being used to buy prostitutes?

 

[Uncensored2008]

because you are letting them keep their tax monies by giving a certain group a deduction or credit while NOT giving another person a credit to reduce their taxes? is that fair?

the gvt has no right to know what anyone does on their time off....everyone is innocent until proven guilty and that is how it should stay....imo. Why in the world would you want to give the gvt so much power over us????????????? the constitution sure didn't want to do that....

Ah brilliant logic...

So anyone not robbed at gun point should be drug tested to see if they are worthy of keeping the funds they were not robbed of...

You must be Obama's chief economic adviser.....

 

[Care4all]

Society has every right to demand limits be set when they are footing the bill. The moochers should be thankful.

NO they don't have the right to invade another's right to privacy, just "because", imho. And as it has shown much more than a majority, actually much much more than a majority of these people are law abiding citizens and YOU have no right to treat them or presume that they are, like scum of the earth, drug addicts. Mind your own business. If you want to get rid of welfare, then shoot to do that....but to have the gvt invade their privacy just because you don't like them or the welfare they receive is simply wrong and a very very very slippery slope.

Drug testing was initially allowed by employers for jobs of responsibility and or dangerous jobs....I was against it then because I KNEW IT WOULD LEAD to this kind of crap...I suppose as long as it is not you personally, you are okay with it.... well, I am not....it gives power to the government that is not in our constitution imo.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No one wants to address who the welfare benefits?

Drug users are bad but a drug users kid has nothing to do with it.

Then take the kid til the user stops using. Then give the kid back. But do not under any circumstances subsidize drug use. That's not fair to the taxpayers. Some day in the world the fucking taxpayer should catch a break and someone should give them a little consideration instead of just pissing the money away willy nilly.

So you're against something you have no proof is happening. Welfare doesn't subsidize drug use, until you prove such you're lying to make a point that doesn't exist.

 

[syrenn]

Society has every right to demand limits be set when they are footing the bill. The moochers should be thankful.

NO they don't have the right to invade another's right to privacy, just "because", imho. And as it has shown much more than a majority, actually much much more than a majority of these people are law abiding citizens and YOU have no right to treat them or presume that they are, like scum of the earth, drug addicts. Mind your own business. If you want to get rid of welfare, then shoot to do that....but to have the gvt invade their privacy just because you don't like them or the welfare they receive is simply wrong and a very very very slippery slope.

Drug testing was initially allowed by employers for jobs of responsibility and or dangerous jobs....I was against it then because I KNEW IT WOULD LEAD to this kind of crap...I suppose as long as it is not you personally, you are okay with it.... well, I am not....it gives power to the government that is not in our constitution imo.

No one is invading their privacy. They dont have to sign up for the assistance if they dont want to test. Just as if you dont have to test if you dont want the job. It is a personal choice to take the check...just as it is a personal choice to take a job. You know going in what the requirements will be. Take it or leave it.