Florida Law: Pass drug test to qualify for welfare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

What's wrong with caffeine?

---

I believe in caffeine disappeared from America Suddenly and permanently, civilization as we know it would collapse. We need these good drugs GG. Work depends upon them. Now, sugary sodas and juices on the other hand, nobody needs those except the shareholders of the company's that produce and market them. Ban them and punish anyone that sells or buys them. Anfpd if you don't exercise at least 3 X per week, regardless of your weight, then you pay a fine. If you are fat, you get incarcerated during off work hours where your diet is stricly controlled until you reach a healthy weight.

:haha: Yes, daddy. Whatever you say. Does that mean no more bacon on Sunday mornings? Anything else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

How about displaying the prescription?
Show the prescription.

---

I don't know how this testing is going to be done, but I remember being drug tested and being told I could not get that job because I had opiates in my system! Period! Prescription or not, it didn't matter! Then too, haven't you heard of prescription drug abuse? It seems to happen more and more all the time. If testing like this is allowed, I see the future coming when Mr. Gov. Hotshit decrees that NO drugs that can be abused can be in the system! Period! Because, of course, there is NEVER a reason for someone on welfare to be on a drug, legal or illegal! They should be spending THEIR money on only state approved items!

Quote:

---

Yes if we're talking about a sports drug test, which is why certain benign, over-the-counter, legal drugs are proscribed for athletes. But if you're testing for illegal drugs only ...

---

There was a time, not too many years ago, that drug tests picked up ibuprofen as marijuana! I'm not sure about now, since I haven't been subjected to an illegal search of my body fluids in years, but I assume there could possibly be more OTC drugs that mimic the results of illicit drugs in the system!

Quote:

---

Well I don't.

---

You would prefer some slug robbed you at gunpoint to get money for his/her drug of choice? You would prefer coming home to that nice home you have, and finding anything that is worth pawning is gone? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

There's nothing racist about treating all drug users the same, unless you think perhaps drug users are racially identifiable? I know white illegal drug users, and I know that the US President is black. Its pretty racist to assume drug user = black.

---

You haven't looked at the incarceration rates for drug crimes lately I guess. The vast majority of those jailed on drug crimes are minorities! What about the crap the SCOTUS just heard about the difference in sentences for possessing 1 gram of powder coke vs. 1 gram rock coke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

I believe in caffeine disappeared from America Suddenly and permanently, civilization as we know it would collapse. We need these good drugs GG. Work depends upon them. Now, sugary sodas and juices on the other hand, nobody needs those except the shareholders of the company's that produce and market them. Ban them and punish anyone that sells or buys them. Anfpd if you don't exercise at least 3 X per week, regardless of your weight, then you pay a fine. If you are fat, you get incarcerated during off work hours where your diet is stricly controlled until you reach a healthy weight.

---

The vast majority of people I know would keel over in a big heap if they weren't allowed their coffee!

People in certain jobs should be drug tested! Pilots, bus drivers, train engineers, cops and firemen are all that I can think of that should be FORCED to take a drug test and should be told what they are allowed to do on their "off" hours! Maybe I should throw in all elected officials, all state workers, and teachers should have their lifestyles curtailed in the name of "fairness"! After all, they shouldn't be allowed a life of any kind without Big Brother watching! Because, you know, they aren't smart enough to decide how to live their own lives! Or how about college students? They should all be drug tested, at their own cost, because WE are paying their way through scholarships! Oh yeah, pet owners should be tested too! After all, that is money that could be spent on pet care instead!

Hmmm! Maybe you have something with the fat people idea! After all, they aren't capable of making good decisions for their lives without help from Big Brother! It doesn't matter if they have a job that pays well enough to pay for all their absurd usage of food!

Of course, skinny people should be subjected to the same type of treatment! But, they should be forced to gain weight by consuming a high calorie diet while in jail 16 hours a day. Fuck sleep...make 'em eat!

I have a question! If someone tests positive for marijuana for instance, will they be arrested on the spot? After all, according to DUI laws, having a substance in your system means possession!

Florida is notorious for its prescription drug abuse. I wouldn't be surprised if our governor's former business supports him with a zero tolerance policy.

Btw, what ARE the false positive rates for these tests? Predictive value, likelihood ratio, whatevs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldmunchkin

You would prefer some slug robbed you at gunpoint to get money for his/her drug of choice? You would prefer coming home to that nice home you have, and finding anything that is worth pawning is gone? :rolleyes:

---

If that happened the person should be locked up. Prison works - once they're in prison they can't commit any more crimes.

I've always come disturbed a burglar who broke my window open to get inside the house. He got arrested and confessed to breaking and entering into my home, another one he was caught red handed on, and 18 others. Sentenced to ... a suspended sentence. :rolleyes: The Police told me that guy had a gambling problem, not drugs.

Quote:

---

You haven't looked at the incarceration rates for drug crimes lately I guess. The vast majority of those jailed on drug crimes are minorities!

---

So what? If we're race-neutral that ought to be irrelevant.

Hey, that crack vs. powder sentencing disparity thing is really interesting, thanks for the tip :up:

This takes effect this week. Still the poors' responsibility to somehow pay the governor's old business for the drug test.

Governor's quote during signing: "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," which is a hell of a thing to suggest about welfare recipients.

Indeed, the right-on thing to say would be that the Florida taxpayers should of course subsidise drug addiction.

No they should subsidize a useless private business instead, right? You really weren't paying attention during this thread were you

Yes, I was.

Seems that (against my wishes) the taxpayer isn't subsidising the testing, those who want to claim "free money" for doing nothing with their lives off the state have to pay for it. Not what I proposed but better than any alternative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes, I was.

Seems that (against my wishes) the taxpayer isn't subsidising the testing, those who want to claim "free money" for doing nothing with their lives off the state have to pay for it. Not what I proposed but better than any alternative.

---

Still you'd have to ask how fair it is to have to prove you're innocent. Especially if you're not using, then why should you take a cut out of your already meagre outcome to get your non-use certified?

You don't have to, you don't have to request welfare. Nobody is forcing anyone to get it.

and thats the fucked up thinking of our TeaParty pet governor. No one is forcing you to eek out a survival. There are jobs for everyone, only the lazy and useless need welfare.

Its already been admitted that this program wouldn't find enough violators to be worth it if it was funded properly. That was never the point. The point is to add yet another hurdle that will make it that much more difficult for that many more people to seek government assistance. But you can't admit that, you need a smokescreen, and constantly suggesting that welfare recipients are possible drug users seems to be our governor's thing. Tying in businesses that your family not only owns stock in, but created, thats just icing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

You're right, wine and beer and liquor ARE bad too. They should be banned for all citizens as well.

---

Well, I see you don't like to have fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You don't have to, you don't have to request welfare. Nobody is forcing anyone to get it.

---

Yeah, but if you need it, that means you are already low on cash. So essentially they are taking money from the welfare program and putting it in the pockets of the governor's ex company. You don't see anything wrong with that? You keep handing out pretty much the same amount of welfare (they admitted that not enough people would fail the test to make a worthwhile as an expense cut), but the people who need it get less of it. How is that not a retarded idea to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Yeah, but if you need it, that means you are already low on cash. So essentially they are taking money from the welfare program and putting it in the pockets of the governor's ex company. You don't see anything wrong with that? You keep handing out pretty much the same amount of welfare (they admitted that not enough people would fail the test to make a worthwhile as an expense cut), but the people who need it get less of it. How is that not a retarded idea to you?

---

I agree that it shouldn't be linked to any individual company like that.

Its not retarded if it doesn't go into the hands of drug dealers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I agree that it shouldn't be linked to any individual company like that.

Its not retarded if it doesn't go into the hands of drug dealers.

---

Right, agreed there but that amount is apparently minimal (otherwise it'd have been cost efficient to have the state pay for the test). And considering you're all into that cost efficiency: the government spends just as much, and significantly less ends up where it is intended. Sounds like a stupid idea to me.

Hell, if anything this pushes more people towards criminality, not just drug users (who now have to get their money elsewhere), but also people for who the test is simply too expensive and need to get money somehow. I would not be surprised at all if this entire scheme ends up with equal drug users, more criminality, and more government money wasted. But hey, why try to find a real solution when you can also shift money towards your old company instead?

Significantly less ends up where its not intended too, you keep omitting that bit.

I think it can be done to be cost-efficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Significantly less ends up where its not intended too, you keep omitting that bit.

I think it can be done to be cost-efficient.

---

Significantly? I doubt that. Got proof for it? Or any concrete reason why it would be cost-efficient? Because it apparently is not, which is why they make people buy it themselves. The program doesn't give any indication that it tries to improve the situation, just that it wants to take money from poor people's benefits and give it to a company.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpIfVUiKvLI

Results are starting to come in. Only 2% of the testers are failing. That means that the state is on the hook for $30,000 to $40,000 a month to reimburse those that were lucky enough to be able to afford the tests in the first place.

As I said to begin with, this had nothing to do with taking druggies out of the system and leaving them without support. This is was all about our Governor helping his own business and creating yet another hurdle for those in need. Wonder if Scott will continue his claims that those on public support use drugs at a higher rate than the general population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Results are starting to come in. Only 2% of the testers are failing. That means that the state is on the hook for $30,000 to $40,000 a month to reimburse those that were lucky enough to be able to afford the tests in the first place.

As I said to begin with, this had nothing to do with taking druggies out of the system and leaving them without support. This is was all about our Governor helping his own business and creating yet another hurdle for those in need. Wonder if Scott will continue his claims that those on public support use drugs at a higher rate than the general population.

---

That's ridiculous logic, just because 2% are failing does not mean that only 2 percent who would have applied were druggies. How many druggies are either cleaning up, or not applying, due to knowledge of this law? Have you never heard of Heisenberg?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's ridiculous logic, just because 2% are failing does not mean that only 2 percent who would have applied were druggies. How many druggies are either cleaning up, or not applying, due to knowledge of this law? Have you never heard of Heisenberg?

---

According to the local paper there has been no noticeable drop in applicants.

Looking into what type of test they use, but considering its for such a wide range of drugs, I'm assuming its something more in depth than urine, such as hair, which means the test would show a history of use going back to a point before the law was passed. Could be another reason why those who fail can't retest for an entire year.

Did find this Time article in the meantime.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...090871,00.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's ridiculous logic, just because 2% are failing does not mean that only 2 percent who would have applied were druggies. How many druggies are either cleaning up, or not applying, due to knowledge of this law?

---

I don't know. Do you know how many there would have to be for this test to be worthwhile in terms of $$$??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I don't know. Do you know how many there would have to be for this test to be worthwhile in terms of $$$??

---

No, absolutely not. OG may not realise it but he keeps making a good point why this should be (more) affordable.

If OG's right that this was just gifted to the governor's company (or whatever the relationship is) then open this up to open tenders from other drug testing companies and it should be even cheaper to do.

EDIT: It hadn't been made clear earlier that those who pass the test are reimbursed the money for the test. So the state is ultimately paying for it then?

EDIT2: I really don't get the logic either that this is designed to stigmatise the needy. The needy are already stigmatised, if this weeds out the crack addicts and leaves the genuine behind then great - we'll know all those on welfare are clean and the stigma can be lifted.

I can guarantee many would not pass this. I live in a relatively affluent area and go to a decent high school, yet more than half my friends, intellectual juggernauts or not, have done weed at some point. This number jumps if you ask me how many have drank before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The needy are already stigmatised, if this weeds out the crack addicts and leaves the genuine behind then great - we'll know all those on welfare are clean and the stigma can be lifted.

---

Because drug users (or addicts) can't be needy? This is another one of those bullshit social conventions I just don't get. Why does it matter if they spend their free government mandated money on one need or another? I mean, the whole justification for taking half my fucking money is to help those who can't help themselves... I can't think of anyone who fits that description more than an unemployed, high-school dropout with a drug habit.

If we're not doing the helping the needy thing anymore, I'm cool with that too, but if we're going to pick and choose which needy people are worthy of help, and which aren't, I wanna pick me and keep all my fucking money from now on. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega

I can guarantee many would not pass this.

---

Research suggest otherwise. So far only 2% are failing, compared to the accepted 8-10% figure for the rest of the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The needy are already stigmatised, if this weeds out the crack addicts and leaves the genuine behind then great

---

Guilty until innocent eh?

Quote:

---

the stigma can be lifted.

---

repeated research showing that the hard off have no greater a drug habit than the rest of the population suggests otherwise.

Does "fucking money" indicate the intended use for that money, like "lunch money"?

Sadly, no. Stupid anti-prostitution laws and all. :(

I don't think the best strategy would be to drug test *everyone*. Make it random. Also pass the law quietly and don't start drug testing at all for a few months. Then randomly start doing it and then ban the person from welfare for the next 5 years. :)

The goal of course being to deprive undeserving people of funds and thus saving tax payers money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

If we're not doing the helping the needy thing anymore, I'm cool with that too, but if we're going to pick and choose which needy people are worthy of help, and which aren't, I wanna pick me and keep all my fucking money from now on. :mad:

---

Well keeping your own money would be the best option. However since that's not likely to happen politically at least we can give money to those who are actually not wasting it on their habits. I kinda think there needs to be an alcohol, tobacco test too... why should the sponges of society waste the tax payers money on that crap?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Research suggest otherwise. So far only 2% are failing, compared to the accepted 8-10% figure for the rest of the population.

---

could you provide a link? Maybe it's just the school/area I live in. But I'd be surprised because the county I live in isn't known throughout the usa and it's one of the richest one. I can only assume the drug problems worsen as you move to poorer/worst countries. I just based it off my own personal experience and a little bit of logic, but hey, numbers don't lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Well keeping your own money would be the best option. However since that's not likely to happen politically at least we can give money to those who are actually not wasting it on their habits. I kinda think there needs to be an alcohol, tobacco test too... why should the sponges of society waste the tax payers money on that crap?

---

How would you pass a law quietly these days? No that's not realistic.

However glad you agree on the alcohol & tobacco point. Guess firearms too perhaps in your nation?

What OG doesn't seem to understand is it doesn't make any difference whatsoever if those on welfare get wasted no more than Charlie Sheen. Charlie Sheen is doing so with his own cash and I'm not paying for it (any more than I pay to get Comedy Central and choose to watch Two & A Half Men). If someone on welfare wants to get wasted then they can earn some money and do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The goal of course being to deprive undeserving people of funds and thus saving tax payers money.

---

Sure, but why is happiness an "undeserving" goal? For that matter, caffeine withdrawal is pretty brutal (and withdrawal from more powerful recreational drugs is even worse), so is avoiding the suck an "undeserving" goal too? And why?

Frankly, better to spend that $14,400 lifetime max ($300 by 48 months) on supporting someone's drug habit than on employing a bureaucrat for ~10 weeks to support this drug testing initiative, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Well keeping your own money would be the best option. However since that's not likely to happen politically at least we can give money to those who are actually not wasting it on their habits. I kinda think there needs to be an alcohol, tobacco test too... why should the sponges of society waste the tax payers money on that crap?

---

Why should they waste it on food or clothing or rent or gas or anything else? For the absolutely no difference it makes to you, I don't see why you care in the first place, but more importantly, you're falling into the progressive trap of assuming you know what's best for someone else's life. If someone wants to prioritize some drug over other basic necessities (or cable TV, for that matter), who are you to say they can't, and how do you even know that's the "wrong" decision? What's next - scrutinizing their grocery lists to make sure they're not wasting any taxpayer money on junk food or convenience items (like pre-made salads or meals ready to cook, etc.)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega

could you provide a link? Maybe it's just the school/area I live in. But I'd be surprised because the county I live in isn't known throughout the usa and it's one of the richest one. I can only assume the drug problems worsen as you move to poorer/worst countries. I just based it off my own personal experience and a little bit of logic, but hey, numbers don't lie.

---

Well, life also gets very different once you're out on your own (and have to pay for your own stuff), not to mention that as people age, they get better at making decisions about the future. Hell, teens usually profile as sociopaths for that reason - neural development in the area(s) of the brain responsible for thinking about the future and consequences don't reach maturity until around 20. Not that a source would be the worst thing in the world, but your personal experiences with high school kids aren't applicable to fully mature adults.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega

could you provide a link? Maybe it's just the school/area I live in. But I'd be surprised because the county I live in isn't known throughout the usa and it's one of the richest one. I can only assume the drug problems worsen as you move to poorer/worst countries. I just based it off my own personal experience and a little bit of logic, but hey, numbers don't lie.

---

The Time article I linked to above mentions one research piece. 70% of drug users are employed full-time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

If someone on welfare wants to get wasted then they can earn some money and do so.

---

Sorry, I understand perfectly fine whats going on with this law. But I have to ask, are you seriously suggesting that drug users use their welfare resources to purchase illegal drugs (not even the pro-testing articles are willing to go this far)? You understand we aren't actually giving them real cash right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

The Time article I linked to above mentions one research piece. 70% of drug users are employed full-time.

---

Good for them! Again, if the Charlie Sheen's and Amy Winehouse's of this world want to snuff their hard earned money up their nose and into the morgue, well so be it. I don't want to pay for them - and I'm not - but nor do I want to pay for the remaining 30% either.

Quote:

---

Sorry, I understand perfectly fine whats going on with this law. But I have to ask, are you seriously suggesting that drug users use their welfare resources to purchase illegal drugs (not even the pro-testing articles are willing to go this far)? You understand we aren't actually giving them real cash right?

---

I'm looking at this from the perspective of socialist Europe, where we do give them real cash. What do you give them there?

You walk past the rather Orwellian-named JobCentre in town and there is always a crowd of chav's hanging outside smoking cigarettes. I suspect they're not the employees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I'm looking at this from the perspective of socialist Europe, where we do give them real cash. What do you give them there?

---

Dirty looks and 300 bucks a month, for up 48 months, lifetime (on this particular program). $3600 a year. Shit, you could almost support a 2 week crack habit with what they get in a year. You can't even make rent, or buy a month's worth of food [for a family] with that, let alone buy drugs... which makes it all the more ridiculous to pay for drug screenings. Just increasing the cost of the program by however much your drug screens cost, because even if you do catch someone, they'll be back next year. So, yippie for more government waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You walk past the rather Orwellian-named JobCentre in town and there is always a crowd of chav's hanging outside smoking cigarettes. I suspect they're not the employees.

---

Well, given that scrapping your BS programs isn't an option, why do you have a problem with how the money's spent? (Unless you're using the way the money's spent as an argument for scrapping the program.) Using the money for recreational drugs [legal or otherwise] is more objectionable than using the money for broadband internet, or cable TV, or an iPhone, or stupidly expensive shoes? And if so, why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The goal of course being to deprive undeserving people of funds and thus saving tax payers money.

---

Undeserving? Do you have a set of criteria that makes someone undeserving of help?