Welfare Drug Testing

Good idea if not a great one it's no different than testing for a job. They have something you want you have to jump through their hoop. Simple really. Michigan is kickinf 12000 people off welfare next month get ready for them to invade the south. Good riddance

reply to post by lpowell0627


Hitler Started it ALL with the Nazi's Anti Smoking Campaign in the 1930's . Goverments trying to Legislate the Personal Behavior of it's Citizens only leads to Tyranny . Today , it's just the Same old Legislation only in a Different Package .


History Does Not Lie , Only the Revisionists who try and Manipulate it for their Own Selfish Goals do .........

reply to post by lpowell0627

My reason is based on the simple fact that being a drug user makes one less employable. It doesn't take many brain cells to figure that out.

nice reason and all ~~ too bad the facts don't allude to your 'theory' ... here in FL, the druggies are generally the employers. The unemployed and assistance receiving populus are clearly not the druggie majority or the test results would have reflected such baloney.

Truth be told, the last 2 jobs i walked out on was because i refused to sell the drugs, especially on camera ... yes, illegal ones sold across the counter at various retail establishments.

and btw, here, one can go to the local head shop and buy all the legal drugs they want ... how is drug testing assistance recipients going to have any impact on the real problem?

heck, as stated in prv threads, i helped a young lady get her biz off the ground only to discover later that she
1) falsified her sales records to qualify for benefits
2) still runs the biz 6 days a week and pays staff to do it for her (while she collects benefits)
3) is one of the only establishments in this county still providing bath salts (illegal) over the counter and even met a customer in the middle of the road (chinese fire-drill routine) to conduct a dope sale.

so, how is testing the most NEEDY helping to eliminate the most ABUSIVE ???

Originally posted by Honor93
ok, if the 4th doesn't apply, please specify what body components are included in "secure in their person"
last i checked, you can't access my bodily fluids on demand ... soooooo, everything beyond that is a request, is it not?
and thus, if i refuse your request, i should be punished ???
you sure about that ?

so, if i should be forced to submit my most intimate and personal fluids, against my will ~~ why do i have to concede to hijabs in public? my taxes pay for that space, if i don't want it, i shouldn't have to endure it according to your philosophy.

and btw, i've certainly signed an assistance application over the years and no where does a signer give consent to such an invasion. If you believe otherwise, please post proof ... i have seen this years' application and no such clause is contained in it.

You aren't understanding what I said. You don't have to get welfare. It's a choice, and by being that it is a choice and you are not forced to receive it, they made it now mandatory for all applicants to receive a drug test. If you don't want to take the test simply don't apply for welfare, problem solved.

I'm against drug testing anyone without the probable cause that they've broken the law. That being said, if you're going to side-step the 4th Amendment, could we at least start drug testing those in power?? Ya, I mean the ones that sit in Washington D.C. and have been duly elected to represent us, but have done a pi** poor job !!! Ya, the ones that have the best pensions and health care that our money can buy.

I would be all for this if at the same time they mandated drug testing for all politicians and government employees. I have a sister that was a corporate attorney for Disney and she was acquanted with a lot of fellow attorneys, some whom have since went into politics and the stories she can tell about some of the parties she attended while hob-knobbing with them blew my mind. She rarely went to them but she said almost everytime she did it was pretty much the same "party favorites" each time.

I also have a problem with Scott's implimentation of this law because at the time the law went inot effect a company named Solantic won the bid for the testing and guess what? It was soon discovered that Scot owned a majority share of the company and then he went even further by lying to state legislators about his involvement with the company. When TSHTF he "sold" his share to his wife and then eventually sold it again to some investor "friends" of his in North Carolina.

www.tampabay.com...
www.naplesnews.com...
www.politicususa.com...

Being a resident of Florida (unfortunately) I, like many residents have seen through Scott's lies and deceptions and have realized that he is in this all for personal gain. He is now on a kick to privatize all of Florida's prisons and wants them to be run by a company that another one of his "associates" has controlling share in. I didn't vote for the man because I just couldn't bring myself to vote for someone that pled the 5th 75 times in a court trial concerning his business practices and insider trading.

www.newsmax.com...

There are many more articles concerning this, just search "Rick Scott pleads 5th" and "Rick Scott Solantic investigation"..

Originally posted by SpaDe_
If you don't want to take the test simply don't apply for welfare, problem solved.

What about drug tests for drivers licenses? Would you support that? We don't HAVE to drive.
What about drug tests for marriage licenses? We don't HAVE to get married.
What about drug tests to purchase insurance? Or to travel abroad?

What makes applying for welfare any different than these scenarios?

And you have a "Mr. Personal Freedom" signature!

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by pattyngayle

 

That's a stretch. Show me one job requirement that says: one must not masturbate.

Are you really going to argue that all addictions are created equal? Do you not see the difference between illegal drug use and legal masturbation? Notice alcohol is not included, despite being classified as a drug. Why? Because it's legal!!

Further, are you really going to stand by the notion that a crack addict is as employable as a non-drug user? Imagine you are hiring a house sitter. Who would you hire: a crack addict always looking for another fix or a clean, sober person?

Excellent point! This is what I meant by the drug subject is never plainly black and white! We could argue this debate until the cows come home.
Also good point on noting that all addictions aren't equal in destruction,etc. While I understand that, the majority of users are "secret smokers" and the like and are normal and good people. Maybe the person started using BECAUSE they were depressed about their unemployment. I am not condoning this I am simply saying that the situations people are in, and/or whatever is causing them to use is, is a more than large enough factor to shut down the whole operation, or almost. All the drug testing routines and actual drug test costs are going to rise so much higher than the money saved from those who failed the DT and no longer receive benefits. People, we'll use your example and say "crackheads", can still be "crackheads" get welfare and pass the drug test by quitting for about two to three days so. Someone who say smoked marijuana a month ago drunken at a funeral or something will fail their drug test and no longer receive benefits. But the active crack/coc aine/herion/opiate/benzo/barb/acid/shroom/meth users will be just fine as long as they're not too high to remember when to quit. You see, it's not that simple.
If they did that with food stamps, especially here in Louisiana, half the damn people would starve.
Can't get a freaking job if there is none to be found..

Originally posted by SpaDe_

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by mus8472

 

wrong ... ppl being responsible comes from within ... not via govt or laws or family influence for that matter.
anyone deciding what is best for me is wrong ~~ i was born with that ability and i'll exercise it at my own peril.
invasion of one's person is just plain wrong, on all levels, on all issues and concerning any govt desire, it is beyond their scope of authority, period.

The bottom line here is you can do whatever you want period. You just can't do whatever you want while receiving state or federal assistance. If you can afford drugs then you can afford food. Welfare is not a constitutional right, so they can adjust the mandate as they see fit.

Actually, the bottom line is NO YOU CAN'T and until you have lived my life, you know no better.
I want to be naked 24/7, can't
I want to be sensual in public, can't
I want to be legally consuming marijuana, can't
I want to be able to provide for myself, atm, can't
I wanted to participate in specific employment but, couldn't (personal size discrimination - am not big enough)
I wanted to birth my child produced from a rape, couldn't *underage*
I wanted my neighbor to mind her own business but ended up shooting her instead.
so, please tell me again ... where can i do whatever i want ???

Receiving assistance doesn't come with 'stipulations' like performing a job.
Receiving assistance isn't something i have to ASK for, just apply
... "To be secure in my person" ... IS a Constitutional right and this forced testing is not
NO one said receiving welfare is a right, protected Constitutionally ...
BUT invading my person, IS.
and no, the govt has no authority greater than that given to them and i refuse.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Welfare is taxpayer money thats the difference. I hope all stated adopt it. The druggies can move to Mexico and see how that works out

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by SpaDe_
If you don't want to take the test simply don't apply for welfare, problem solved.

What about drug tests for drivers licenses? Would you support that? We don't HAVE to drive.
What about drug tests for marriage licenses? We don't HAVE to get married.
What about drug tests to purchase insurance? Or to travel abroad?

What makes applying for welfare any different than these scenarios?

And you have a "Mr. Personal Freedom" signature!

edit on 9/8/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

Oh, that's right I forgot that all of the things you listed guarantee me a check at the tax payers expense every month. Sorry, but your argument is largely flawed, because I have to pay for all of those things. Bottom line here is there is no constitutional violations in any way. Want assistance pee in the cup, don't want to pee in the cup, then don't apply.

Originally posted by buster2010
The drug testing in Florida is nothing more than a scam. The lab the governors wife owns is the one that got the contract to do the testing. Only a small percent of the people tested came back positive not even enough to warrant the tests being given. On top of it the people being tested had to pay for it making a person on a fixed income have even less money. Real good idea.

Whoever this freakin Rick governor guy is an ass. Floridians, why aren't you protesting!?
This is why I hate politics, we really are all just a bunch of pawns, the lower class that is.
I am absolutely outraged at the fact that they had to pay for it themselves!
I can't even speak on it right now I'm so apalled.

reply to post by mus8472

Good, than exercise your own ability to decide your own life with your own dime. See, if you rent from someone else, the owner/landlord has the right to search your home anytime he wants so long as notice is given. Why? Because he owns it and you are merely paying to borrow it. Also known as: it's not yours.

Welfare money is borrowed money. It comes from someone else. It's not yours. Therefore, one should have to abide by the payor's rules or else don't be a payee.

i did that for many a year and now y'all want me to contribute MY savings to your economic hardships (ie SS)
sorry but you are mistaken ... renters pay for the privilege
poor, staving, homeless (whom welfare is meant to assist) are not expected to pay for any privilege but they do need to eat.

actually, welfare is more comparable to a tip jar ... everyone contributes and then it's divided equally (supposedly)
no one is paid by their individual effort, it is a group thing, just like taxes.

IF you want to OWN your money, STOP freely giving it to the govt slackers !!!
tell ya what, i'll trade 5yrs of welfare benefits for ONE year of Congressional benefits, how's that?
i can be equally useless ~~ pay me.

oooooh, ah yeah ... almost forgot ... please, send me to Congress ...
free money, free medical, lifetime benefits, all the weed i can smoke and you'll pay for it without complaint ... ooohhhhh, oooooooo Mr Kotter, Mr Kotter pick me !!!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

What about drug tests for drivers licenses? Would you support that? We don't HAVE to drive. What about drug tests for marriage licenses? We don't HAVE to get married. What about drug tests to purchase insurance? Or to travel abroad? What makes applying for welfare any different than these scenarios?

Are you blind? These are not government handouts. These are things we pay for, not income. You only have to ask yourself one question: Do you have a problem paying tax dollars which will be used to enable somebody's drug addiction, rendering them a useless member of society indefinitely, as i said in the original post?

Note: 'Enable' doesn't literally mean using the money to directly buy drugs. But rather, the money used to buy drugs should be used to feed/house/clothe yourself. If you can do all those things without govt assistance and you decide to spend your extra money on recreational drugs, that's up to you.

reply to post by pattyngayle

Whoever this freakin Rick governor guy is an ass. Floridians, why aren't you protesting!? This is why I hate politics, we really are all just a bunch of pawns, the lower class that is. I am absolutely outraged at the fact that they had to pay for it themselves! I can't even speak on it right now I'm so apalled.

The protest if flawed. They shouldn't be protesting against the idea. I agree with protesting against the conflict of interest. That is a situation that falls in the the category of accountability, addressed in a previous post.

Originally posted by TomServo
Are you blind? These are not government handouts.

The government collects taxes and then distributes them in the way they see fit. Some of that goes to welfare, some goes to roads, parks, police, fire departments. These are ALL "government handouts". We pay taxes, the government gives us roads, parks, a PD, a FD, etc.

So, do you support drug testing to use roads?
Do you support drug testing to enter national parks?
Do you support drug testing before the police respond to your 911 call?

Do you have a problem paying tax dollars which will be used to enable somebody's drug addiction, rendering them a useless member of society indefinitely, as i said in the original post?

I have a problem with a lot of the things the government does with my tax dollars, but I don't get to pick and choose. If I did, we wouldn't be at war. But punishing the people who DO need welfare is not the answer. It's a violation of their privacy and their person without probable cause.

Ron Paul is against the War on Drugs and drug testing of gov't employees.

Originally posted by SpaDe_

Originally posted by Honor93
ok, if the 4th doesn't apply, please specify what body components are included in "secure in their person"
last i checked, you can't access my bodily fluids on demand ... soooooo, everything beyond that is a request, is it not?
and thus, if i refuse your request, i should be punished ???
you sure about that ?

so, if i should be forced to submit my most intimate and personal fluids, against my will ~~ why do i have to concede to hijabs in public? my taxes pay for that space, if i don't want it, i shouldn't have to endure it according to your philosophy.

and btw, i've certainly signed an assistance application over the years and no where does a signer give consent to such an invasion. If you believe otherwise, please post proof ... i have seen this years' application and no such clause is contained in it.

You aren't understanding what I said. You don't have to get welfare. It's a choice, and by being that it is a choice and you are not forced to receive it, they made it now mandatory for all applicants to receive a drug test. If you don't want to take the test simply don't apply for welfare, problem solved.

oh but i do NOT misunderstand my friend ... been there and done that for more generations than i care to admit.
like i said before, responsibility comes from within.

Yes, it is a choice and if your possess any self-respect, it is a rather self-deflating one at that.
so by all means, beat the battered dog, then steal it's bodily fluids to "prove or disprove" a theory ... that's some concept of choice there ... i'll have to remember that one the next time (well off) neighbors are in the yard stealing fruit.

With that said, i have to reluctantly compliment the crack kids ... at least they knock and ask. (and are never refused) ... no one should go hungry for any reason !!!
But for some reason, the original Geico commercials come to mind ... remember when the caveman was pulling and trading his teeth as currency ??? just how far away from that moment are we?

oh and for the record, your disinfo won't get past me ... NO THEY DON'T test ALL recipients ... only those currently receiving a CASH benefit get tested.
FS only recipients have NOT been tested in any state (to date) and yes both are credited to a card (cash/fs), however the spending of that cash benefit is not monitored ... yet, ALL fs purchases are tracked and recorded.

you can even get online and see where you spent them and how much at each location.
Perhaps a good start would be similar monitoring of the CASH FLOW, don't ya think?
Once you know the rules, then you can avoid them, see how that works ??

I found this interesting for all those saying they are just targeting welfare recipients.

Under the law, which went into effect on Friday, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children. Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state's congressional delegation issued a joint statement attacking the legislation, one calling it "downright unconstitutional." And the ACLU has filed suit against the state for requiring all state workers to take a drug test and is considering suing the state for drug-testing welfare applicants.

CNN

So, they are at the very least practicing what they preach. Now what do the people have to say that were saying they were just targeting the poor?

Originally posted by SpaDe_

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by SpaDe_
If you don't want to take the test simply don't apply for welfare, problem solved.

What about drug tests for drivers licenses? Would you support that? We don't HAVE to drive.
What about drug tests for marriage licenses? We don't HAVE to get married.
What about drug tests to purchase insurance? Or to travel abroad?

What makes applying for welfare any different than these scenarios?

And you have a "Mr. Personal Freedom" signature!

edit on 9/8/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

Oh, that's right I forgot that all of the things you listed guarantee me a check at the tax payers expense every month. Sorry, but your argument is largely flawed, because I have to pay for all of those things. Bottom line here is there is no constitutional violations in any way. Want assistance pee in the cup, don't want to pee in the cup, then don't apply.

well ok, if you're gonna offer a snide reply to BH ... let's get specific
1) drivers get their $$ monthly/weekly/daily monies easier than any welfare recipient (most walk or use public transportation that they pay for - more taxes they pay)
2) married folks get a bigger benefit
3) health insurance already drug tests (have been for years) -- you are just not told
4) if you have any other 'rights' that produce LESS of a benefit, please share.

and it does make a difference, every person has the right to eat, every person has the right to work, every person has the right to pay or not pay taxes (true cause illegals & corporations do it every day) ... so, given the rights stated previously, how, when or where is your right to manage monies you FREELY gave away??

reply to post by SpaDe_



Interesting article, because what does it mean when people who fail the drug screen can designate benefits to other people for thier children?

Will they lose custody of children if they fail?

Also it leaves a wide open loophole for all sorts of people who will fail to come up with creative ways to work around the system.