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

[WillowTree]

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




Not sure how I feel about this.

1,597 + 32 + 1,629 stoners who have been sucking up taxpayers money. Now they ain't.


This is good.

Okay.



What if they die without assistance.

Still good in your book?

so you want the taxpayer to enable their drug purchases? you good with that? what if they die of overdose? you good with that?

 

[Care4all]

Pure harassment? lol nobody is forcing them to take the hand out... to call this harassment is either not knowing what harassment is or just straight diluted thinking


Anyways this is ultimately futile because most people who take drugs know how to get around the test. Well at least the smart ones and the ones able to play the system.

And I'm not sure of your point about alcohol? Do you want them to test for that or not?

it is an invasion of privacy....and as someone who does not do drugs, I would still not take the test....on principle alone....and hopefully win my case in court. Innocent people should not be forced to do this....under any circumstances in my book.

it is commonplace in the working world...as it is a necessity for the safety of co-workers.

Do you not see the upside for the user in this case? It may prompt the user to seek help.

And it will eliminate the taxpayer from being the enabler of the habit.

It seems to be a win win for all....except the ones that WANT to use and WANT the taxpayer to pay for it.

I worked nearly 30 years before I retired....I never had to take a drug test for any job that I held.

Upper management NEVER has to take drug tests, and the corps that I worked for did not test their corporate office or field workers either. they only drug tested the employees that worked in the distribution center, because a lot of dangerous equipment to move the goods were present and needed to be operated.

No one in an office setting was drug tested. If they did not performed their job, then they were fired after the proper amount of write ups. they were not fired for doing drugs on their time off....they were fired if they could not perform the job they were paid to do...period.

As upper management, not once did I ever fire a person because of drugs....and I fired 11 out of the 12 employees I inherited at a new managers job once....leaving me and the 1 employee running the show until I could hire more...but again, not one of these people were fired for doing drugs, but for not doing their job and a few for stealing.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I take it you didn't like a truthful answer to your "reasonable clause" question and now want to go down the "silly road". Sorry don't play those games.

If it's silly, its your fault, because I was using your own rationale.

 

[ClosedCaption]

How about if you are spending money on drugs that should be spent on food and clothes.
And if you have kids what does it say about you. I remember one couple that would rather by coke than spend money for diapers for their baby. Are you ok with that?
If you want to do drugs go ahead. Just pay for them with your own money.

I dont get it, drugs arent paid for with WIC checks and food stamps. Money pays for it.

Checks can be cased for money. Food Stamps can be sold, usually they are sold as some reduced value (say $20 in food stamps sells for $10 in cash, the purchaser can then buy $20 of Food Stamp eligible food, or, sell the stamps for $15 and make a 50% profit on investment - not a bad return as long as you don't get caught).

Even if a couple is a drug user and spends all their money on drugs, what does that have to do with their child?

If the money is being paid to support the child, then it should be used to support the child not buy drugs.


>>>>

WIC checks CANNOT be CASHED!

Food stamps CAN be sold just like anything else like ***** or blow jobs. Will a Drug Dealer take food stamps over money, no? Will he take ***** or blow jobs, maybe but not always... but that has shit to do with your last point, which I agree with. They should take care of their kids but dont. So, what about the kid?

Its easy to say what the parents should do, but when they dont, what are you for?

 

[StevenC]

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?

How about if you are spending money on drugs that should be spent on food and clothes.
And if you have kids what does it say about you. I remember one couple that would rather by coke than spend money for diapers for their baby. Are you ok with that?
If you want to do drugs go ahead. Just pay for them with your own money.

I dont get it, drugs arent paid for with WIC checks and food stamps. Money pays for it.

Even if a couple is a drug user and spends all their money on drugs, what does that have to do with their child?

First I don't care if they have children or not. If you are getting any assistance you should not be buying anything that is not needed to live. No drugs, booze, soda, junk food, video games or any such.
If you do have kids though and are buying drugs instead of other things like clothes you are pure scum. Or you are gaming the system, which makes you worse than scum because you are stealing money. Money that could be used for those that really needed.

 

[OODA_Loop]

[What if they die without assistance.

Still good in your book?

They demonstrate the drug is greater than sustenance to them.....and their children should have been taken from them long ago.

 

[WillowTree]

it is an invasion of privacy....and as someone who does not do drugs, I would still not take the test....on principle alone....and hopefully win my case in court. Innocent people should not be forced to do this....under any circumstances in my book.

it is commonplace in the working world...as it is a necessity for the safety of co-workers.

Do you not see the upside for the user in this case? It may prompt the user to seek help.

And it will eliminate the taxpayer from being the enabler of the habit.

It seems to be a win win for all....except the ones that WANT to use and WANT the taxpayer to pay for it.

I worked nearly 30 years before I retired....I never had to take a drug test for any job that I held.

Upper management NEVER has to take drug tests, and the corps that I worked for did not test their corporate office or field workers either. they only drug tested the employees that worked in the distribution center, because a lot of dangerous equipment to move the goods were present and needed to be operated.

No one in an office setting was drug tested. If they did not performed their job, then they were fired after the proper amount of write ups. they were not fired for doing drugs on their time off....they were fired if they could not perform the job they were paid to do...period.

As upper management, not once did I ever fire a person because of drugs....and I fired 11 out of the 12 employees I inherited at a new managers job once....leaving me and the 1 employee running the show until I could hire more...but again, not one of these people were fired for doing drugs, but for not doing their job and a few for stealing.

So I take it then that you are fine with doctors, nurses, firemen policemen, teachers, truck drivers, and bus driver taking drugs.. everyone should be able to take drugs and not have their privacy invaded.... whoooopppeeee, then why did they pass a "DRUG FREE WORKPLACE" legislation????

 

[Care4all]

How about if you are spending money on drugs that should be spent on food and clothes.
And if you have kids what does it say about you. I remember one couple that would rather by coke than spend money for diapers for their baby. Are you ok with that?
If you want to do drugs go ahead. Just pay for them with your own money.

I dont get it, drugs arent paid for with WIC checks and food stamps. Money pays for it.

Even if a couple is a drug user and spends all their money on drugs, what does that have to do with their child?

First I don't care if they have children or not. If you are getting any assistance you should not be buying anything that is not needed to live. No drugs, booze, soda, junk food, video games or any such.
If you do have kids though and are buying drugs instead of other things like clothes you are pure scum. Or you are gaming the system, which makes you worse than scum because you are stealing money. Money that could be used for those that really needed.

okay, taking ALL OF THAT in to consideration, how do you feel about corporations and banks taking TARP bail out monies, isn't that assistance with tax payer's money? and how about any company that gets a tax subsidy? Should they be required to be drug tested as well or their companies receive no gvt assistance?

What about all of you with children that takes the gvt $1000 child credit, should they be drug tested as well? Or on unemployment, them too? or on food stamps, them too? or receiving SS for goodness sakes...how about them, should we be drug testing them?

Where will it end, when no one is left standing?

 

[Jarhead]

it is an invasion of privacy....and as someone who does not do drugs, I would still not take the test....on principle alone....and hopefully win my case in court. Innocent people should not be forced to do this....under any circumstances in my book.

it is commonplace in the working world...as it is a necessity for the safety of co-workers.

Do you not see the upside for the user in this case? It may prompt the user to seek help.

And it will eliminate the taxpayer from being the enabler of the habit.

It seems to be a win win for all....except the ones that WANT to use and WANT the taxpayer to pay for it.

I worked nearly 30 years before I retired....I never had to take a drug test for any job that I held.

Upper management NEVER has to take drug tests, and the corps that I worked for did not test their corporate office or field workers either. they only drug tested the employees that worked in the distribution center, because a lot of dangerous equipment to move the goods were present and needed to be operated.

No one in an office setting was drug tested. If they did not performed their job, then they were fired after the proper amount of write ups. they were not fired for doing drugs on their time off....they were fired if they could not perform the job they were paid to do...period.

As upper management, not once did I ever fire a person because of drugs....and I fired 11 out of the 12 employees I inherited at a new managers job once....leaving me and the 1 employee running the show until I could hire more...but again, not one of these people were fired for doing drugs, but for not doing their job and a few for stealing.

times have changed.
Here in NY, if an employee has drugs on his/her possession while in the workpolace, the employer may be held liable as an "accessory" if that person is arrested on the premises.
If a drug transaction takes place on the premises, the business owner IS held liable.

Maybe if we go back to a world of personal responsibility, we could get rid of the drug testing idea all around.

But in the meantime, you cant expect to NOT be respoinsible for yourself but get all oif the freedoms associated with being reponsible for yourself.

 

[WillowTree]

it is commonplace in the working world...as it is a necessity for the safety of co-workers.

Do you not see the upside for the user in this case? It may prompt the user to seek help.

And it will eliminate the taxpayer from being the enabler of the habit.

It seems to be a win win for all....except the ones that WANT to use and WANT the taxpayer to pay for it.

I worked nearly 30 years before I retired....I never had to take a drug test for any job that I held.

Upper management NEVER has to take drug tests, and the corps that I worked for did not test their corporate office or field workers either. they only drug tested the employees that worked in the distribution center, because a lot of dangerous equipment to move the goods were present and needed to be operated.

No one in an office setting was drug tested. If they did not performed their job, then they were fired after the proper amount of write ups. they were not fired for doing drugs on their time off....they were fired if they could not perform the job they were paid to do...period.

As upper management, not once did I ever fire a person because of drugs....and I fired 11 out of the 12 employees I inherited at a new managers job once....leaving me and the 1 employee running the show until I could hire more...but again, not one of these people were fired for doing drugs, but for not doing their job and a few for stealing.

So I take it then that you are fine with doctors, nurses, firemen policemen, teachers, truck drivers, and bus driver taking drugs.. everyone should be able to take drugs and not have their privacy invaded.... whoooopppeeee, then why did they pass a "DRUG FREE WORKPLACE" legislation????

I dont get it, drugs arent paid for with WIC checks and food stamps. Money pays for it.

Even if a couple is a drug user and spends all their money on drugs, what does that have to do with their child?

First I don't care if they have children or not. If you are getting any assistance you should not be buying anything that is not needed to live. No drugs, booze, soda, junk food, video games or any such.
If you do have kids though and are buying drugs instead of other things like clothes you are pure scum. Or you are gaming the system, which makes you worse than scum because you are stealing money. Money that could be used for those that really needed.

okay, taking ALL OF THAT in to consideration, how do you feel about corporations and banks taking TARP bail out monies, isn't that assistance with tax payer's money? and how about any company that gets a tax subsidy? Should they be required to be drug tested as well or their companies receive no gvt assistance?

What about all of you with children that takes the gvt $1000 child credit, should they be drug tested as well? Or on unemployment, them too? or on food stamps, them too? or receiving SS for goodness sakes...how about them, should we be drug testing them?

Where will it end, when no one is left standing?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't think welfare is a constitutionally guaranteed right so the state has the ability to hold recipients to whatever criteria they please.

 

[Jarhead]

I dont get it, drugs arent paid for with WIC checks and food stamps. Money pays for it.

Even if a couple is a drug user and spends all their money on drugs, what does that have to do with their child?

First I don't care if they have children or not. If you are getting any assistance you should not be buying anything that is not needed to live. No drugs, booze, soda, junk food, video games or any such.
If you do have kids though and are buying drugs instead of other things like clothes you are pure scum. Or you are gaming the system, which makes you worse than scum because you are stealing money. Money that could be used for those that really needed.

okay, taking ALL OF THAT in to consideration, how do you feel about corporations and banks taking TARP bail out monies, isn't that assistance with tax payer's money? and how about any company that gets a tax subsidy? Should they be required to be drug tested as well or their companies receive no gvt assistance?

YES. No question about it.

What about all of you with children that takes the gvt $1000 child credit, should they be drug tested as well? Or on unemployment, them too? or on food stamps, them too? or receiving SS for goodness sakes...how about them, should we be drug testing them?

I dont take a governemtn tax credit. It is part of the tax code...it is what I get iun retyurn for doiung what I am supposed to do. it is not a freebie.
Where will it end, when no one is left standing?

why do you assume all are on drugs?

 

[Care4all]

it is commonplace in the working world...as it is a necessity for the safety of co-workers.

Do you not see the upside for the user in this case? It may prompt the user to seek help.

And it will eliminate the taxpayer from being the enabler of the habit.

It seems to be a win win for all....except the ones that WANT to use and WANT the taxpayer to pay for it.

I worked nearly 30 years before I retired....I never had to take a drug test for any job that I held.

Upper management NEVER has to take drug tests, and the corps that I worked for did not test their corporate office or field workers either. they only drug tested the employees that worked in the distribution center, because a lot of dangerous equipment to move the goods were present and needed to be operated.

No one in an office setting was drug tested. If they did not performed their job, then they were fired after the proper amount of write ups. they were not fired for doing drugs on their time off....they were fired if they could not perform the job they were paid to do...period.

As upper management, not once did I ever fire a person because of drugs....and I fired 11 out of the 12 employees I inherited at a new managers job once....leaving me and the 1 employee running the show until I could hire more...but again, not one of these people were fired for doing drugs, but for not doing their job and a few for stealing.

times have changed.
Here in NY, if an employee has drugs on his/her possession while in the workpolace, the employer may be held liable as an "accessory" if that person is arrested on the premises.
If a drug transaction takes place on the premises, the business owner IS held liable.

Maybe if we go back to a world of personal responsibility, we could get rid of the drug testing idea all around.

But in the meantime, you cant expect to NOT be respoinsible for yourself but get all oif the freedoms associated with being reponsible for yourself.

But it's not freedom if you are FORCED to take a drug test for no reason of your own accord, in my book.

 

[WillowTree]

I worked nearly 30 years before I retired....I never had to take a drug test for any job that I held.

Upper management NEVER has to take drug tests, and the corps that I worked for did not test their corporate office or field workers either. they only drug tested the employees that worked in the distribution center, because a lot of dangerous equipment to move the goods were present and needed to be operated.

No one in an office setting was drug tested. If they did not performed their job, then they were fired after the proper amount of write ups. they were not fired for doing drugs on their time off....they were fired if they could not perform the job they were paid to do...period.

As upper management, not once did I ever fire a person because of drugs....and I fired 11 out of the 12 employees I inherited at a new managers job once....leaving me and the 1 employee running the show until I could hire more...but again, not one of these people were fired for doing drugs, but for not doing their job and a few for stealing.

times have changed.
Here in NY, if an employee has drugs on his/her possession while in the workpolace, the employer may be held liable as an "accessory" if that person is arrested on the premises.
If a drug transaction takes place on the premises, the business owner IS held liable.

Maybe if we go back to a world of personal responsibility, we could get rid of the drug testing idea all around.

But in the meantime, you cant expect to NOT be respoinsible for yourself but get all oif the freedoms associated with being reponsible for yourself.

But it's not freedom if you are FORCED to take a drug test for no reason of your own accord, in my book.

you aren't forced. You can take it or knot.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I worked nearly 30 years before I retired....I never had to take a drug test for any job that I held.

Upper management NEVER has to take drug tests, and the corps that I worked for did not test their corporate office or field workers either. they only drug tested the employees that worked in the distribution center, because a lot of dangerous equipment to move the goods were present and needed to be operated.

No one in an office setting was drug tested. If they did not performed their job, then they were fired after the proper amount of write ups. they were not fired for doing drugs on their time off....they were fired if they could not perform the job they were paid to do...period.

As upper management, not once did I ever fire a person because of drugs....and I fired 11 out of the 12 employees I inherited at a new managers job once....leaving me and the 1 employee running the show until I could hire more...but again, not one of these people were fired for doing drugs, but for not doing their job and a few for stealing.

times have changed.
Here in NY, if an employee has drugs on his/her possession while in the workpolace, the employer may be held liable as an "accessory" if that person is arrested on the premises.
If a drug transaction takes place on the premises, the business owner IS held liable.

Maybe if we go back to a world of personal responsibility, we could get rid of the drug testing idea all around.

But in the meantime, you cant expect to NOT be respoinsible for yourself but get all oif the freedoms associated with being reponsible for yourself.

But it's not freedom if you are FORCED to take a drug test for no reason of your own accord, in my book.

You're not being forced to take the drug test because no one is forcing you to go on the dole. One has to apply for benefits and the test is simply part of the application process.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You demonstrate the problem in our Government today. Zero common sense.

Jillian has the intellect of a bag of hammers.

I support full legalization of drugs. Along with this I support the ability of employers to test to protect themselves as well as the testing of those on public assistance.

Freedom, a concept the left just can't grasp.

 

[Jarhead]

I worked nearly 30 years before I retired....I never had to take a drug test for any job that I held.

Upper management NEVER has to take drug tests, and the corps that I worked for did not test their corporate office or field workers either. they only drug tested the employees that worked in the distribution center, because a lot of dangerous equipment to move the goods were present and needed to be operated.

No one in an office setting was drug tested. If they did not performed their job, then they were fired after the proper amount of write ups. they were not fired for doing drugs on their time off....they were fired if they could not perform the job they were paid to do...period.

As upper management, not once did I ever fire a person because of drugs....and I fired 11 out of the 12 employees I inherited at a new managers job once....leaving me and the 1 employee running the show until I could hire more...but again, not one of these people were fired for doing drugs, but for not doing their job and a few for stealing.

times have changed.
Here in NY, if an employee has drugs on his/her possession while in the workpolace, the employer may be held liable as an "accessory" if that person is arrested on the premises.
If a drug transaction takes place on the premises, the business owner IS held liable.

Maybe if we go back to a world of personal responsibility, we could get rid of the drug testing idea all around.

But in the meantime, you cant expect to NOT be respoinsible for yourself but get all oif the freedoms associated with being reponsible for yourself.

But it's not freedom if you are FORCED to take a drug test for no reason of your own accord, in my book.

it is freedom as you are not forced to take the drug test.

It is not like a breathalyzer test where you are forced to take it....or be subject to arrest.

This is a drug trest.....and in return you can get something.

You opt to not take the drug test, no arrest, no fine....you just dont get what it is you wanted.

Sort of like the sign of a restaurant....."no shirt, noi serviice"

Does that take away ones freedom?

 

[Uncensored2008]

there is no proof that stoners are subsidized

Mommy lets you live in the basement, that's definitely subsidizing your drugged out ass.

 

[Care4all]

times have changed.
Here in NY, if an employee has drugs on his/her possession while in the workpolace, the employer may be held liable as an "accessory" if that person is arrested on the premises.
If a drug transaction takes place on the premises, the business owner IS held liable.

Maybe if we go back to a world of personal responsibility, we could get rid of the drug testing idea all around.

But in the meantime, you cant expect to NOT be respoinsible for yourself but get all oif the freedoms associated with being reponsible for yourself.

But it's not freedom if you are FORCED to take a drug test for no reason of your own accord, in my book.

You're not being forced to take the drug test because no one is forcing you to go on the dole. One has to apply for benefits and the test is simply part of the application process.

I just don't see it that way.

and if you take it that way, then anyone applying for gvt assistance, those in agriculture receiving subsidies, in the oil business receiving gvt subsidies, or any business reciving gvt assistance needs to have all employees drug tested or at least all of upper management in these businesses that receive gvt money, or those taking a child tax credit, or unemployment or social security should have to take a drug test in order to receive that assistance....

fair and just, no?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I dont get it, drugs arent paid for with WIC checks and food stamps. Money pays for it.

Checks can be cased for money. Food Stamps can be sold, usually they are sold as some reduced value (say $20 in food stamps sells for $10 in cash, the purchaser can then buy $20 of Food Stamp eligible food, or, sell the stamps for $15 and make a 50% profit on investment - not a bad return as long as you don't get caught).

Even if a couple is a drug user and spends all their money on drugs, what does that have to do with their child?

If the money is being paid to support the child, then it should be used to support the child not buy drugs.


>>>>

WIC checks CANNOT be CASHED!

Food stamps CAN be sold just like anything else like ***** or blow jobs. Will a Drug Dealer take food stamps over money, no? Will he take ***** or blow jobs, maybe but not always... but that has shit to do with your last point, which I agree with. They should take care of their kids but dont. So, what about the kid?

Its easy to say what the parents should do, but when they dont, what are you for?

Any exchange medium can be "cashed", whether it's conversion directly to money or to goods that are sold it's still "cashed".


Didn't say the drug dealer would take food stamps over cash (although they could). There are probably criminals that deal directly with scamming Food Stamps for cash.



>>>>