Cherokee Charlie Regulator #4967 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 A friend from Florida e-mailed us this. Is it true? Way to go Florida ! Florida! Subject: Way to go Florida! One down.....49 to go!!! Florida is the first state - Hooray for Florida Florida is the first state that is now going to require drug testing for welfare! Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's completely legal that every other working person had to pass a drug test in order to have a J-O-B that supports those on welfare! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Hawk 60642 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Well , if it aint....it shore ouighta be !!! :FlagAm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater 53393 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Works for me. Not some random spot check. It should be when you get your check you submit to a test. You receive a form and take it to the clinic or your physician and do the test that day. Thumb print also required. If you fail the test, you're removed permanently from the welfare rolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Yep => http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_drug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS Right off the bat a couple of jackasses are whining that it's unconstitutional. Explain to me then how it is constitutional to take money from someone who works hard and stays sober and give it to some stoned slug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shoer 27979 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Works for me. Not some random spot check. It should be when you get your check you submit to a test. You receive a form and take it to the clinic or your physician and do the test that day. Thumb print also required. If you fail the test, you're removed permanently from the welfare rolls. The only problem Blackwater is the the ones who are to lazy to work and expect welfare WILL figure out how to beat the drug test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.D.Ironsmith Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Yep => http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_drug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS Right off the bat a couple of jackasses are whining that it's unconstitutional. Explain to me then how it is constitutional to take money from someone who works hard and stays sober and give it to some stoned slug? I think we are in agreement that those that accept welfare should have have to pass a drug test... but don't get carried away here... staying sober?... this is a saloon... I work hard, but make no claim of staying "sober!" Barkeep the next rounds on J.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodine Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Nope,not the only one. Missourah done it last month, Gov. Nixon signed it into law. On the surface it sounds good, but when you start adding up the numbers, it's gonna cost a LOT more than any savings the state might be touting. Not defending any druggies, just stating the facts. By the time the state pays for the testing, AND the rehab/treatment program, and this all come from TAXPAYER bucks too, the drug testing and rehab/treatment ends up costing about four times what they were paying out in benefits to the druggie in the first place. Add the fact that the recipient can challenge this in court, well, you do the math. It's just a "feel-good" piece of truly worthless legislation to make people think the government is doing something besides screwing us. Bodine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 staying sober?... this is a saloon... I work hard, but make no claim of staying "sober!" Barkeep the next rounds on J.D. I'm glad you have yer priorities straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 It's a conundrum. Those who test positive suddenly have their meager source of income cut off... not hard to imagine what they'll do to replace it - at least some of them. I'm wonderin' if any "savings" will be more than offset by either increased policing costs or cost to the public in the form of increased crime. Arrgghh...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 ... staying sober?... this is a saloon... I work hard, but make no claim of staying "sober!" Barkeep the next rounds on J.D. OK ... how about "staying clean" instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 OK ... how about "staying clean" instead? Amen GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater 53393 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Nope,not the only one. Missourah done it last month, Gov. Nixon signed it into law. On the surface it sounds good, but when you start adding up the numbers, it's gonna cost a LOT more than any savings the state might be touting. Not defending any druggies, just stating the facts. By the time the state pays for the testing, AND the rehab/treatment program, and this all come from TAXPAYER bucks too, the drug testing and rehab/treatment ends up costing about four times what they were paying out in benefits to the druggie in the first place. Add the fact that the recipient can challenge this in court, well, you do the math. It's just a "feel-good" piece of truly worthless legislation to make people think the government is doing something besides screwing us. Bodine. If the bill is properly written any legal contest would be a civil matter and taxpayer money would only be spent to put an appeals board in place and maintain it. Then just one appeal and done. The state is responsible for one test only. After the first test the recipient foots the bill for subsequent tests from funds received. You want to live off the taxpayers! You maintain the test procedure! It should go for public housing as well. Any not legal or unprescribed substance found should be reason for immediate action and any appeal should be the recipient's expense. Fail to submit to testing and you're done. Just like having a JOB! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seldom Seen #16162 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 So to be on welfare and use drugs is bad. To be employed and use drugs is good. To not be on welfare or legally employeed is good? Drug users children going hungry is good due to no money to buy food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater 53393 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 It's simple!! Stay off drugs. Most of us who are employed are required to be drug free. Why shouldn't welfare recipients be held to the same standards?!?!?!? If the abuser's got children, they're already suffering. Child Protective Services ought to already be involved for the well being of any children involved. They are most often receiving taxpayer support as well, which the parent or guardian sometimes abuses too. Many social workers will tell you that without stricter guidelines on these matters, their hands are tied. This could be a useful tool for those who strive to protect those children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodine Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 You nailed the problem Desperado, these bills are NOT properly written and the appeals process is at the public expense, (think beauracracies and paper-pushers too) as is the testing and treatment. Then we have the good ol' ACLU to press these cases in courts and the state has to pay to defend it, also at taxpayer expense. Again, it is only another smoke-n-mirrors ploy for election campaign and is largely un-enforceable in the long run. Heck, just the set-up cost alone for this is going to outweigh any saving to the taxpayers. And when is the last time a government sponsored project actually saved anyone anything? In MO, the average check to a single parent with two kids is $257/month. The cost of one person testing positive is estimated to run around $1200 to $1500 before appeals. (remember the paper-pushers in all this, the gov't employees are getting paid by taxpayer dollars to sift throught his too). The simplest answer would be to not give them any cash at all, and use the barcodes on food products to regulate how any benefits are spent via plastic-cards (which used to be done here in MO), and payments sent directly to electric and water service providers instead of trusting the recipient to use the money for those purposes. This could be done with little cost to the state at all. This "war on drugs" has already cost us way more than we can ever recover and drug use is as prevalent as ever, we lost. Bodine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gateway Kid SASS# 70038 Life Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Sorry to be a hard ass - but as one who gets tested 2-4 times a year on a random basis I have zero sympathy for those want me to pay for their "lifestyle" of using drugs. Do their children face hardship if the checks stop? of course but they face as much or more by living in an environment where drug overdoses occur with monotonous regularity, shootings over "drug deals gone bad" are a fact of life and innocents die because of stray bullets sprayed into the wrong car/house when the drug dealers fight over "their" turf. Add in the burgleries, home invasions and domestic assaults as drugged out individuals lose sight of right and wrong in search of a payday to get their next fix and someone who says stopping taxpayer funding of a drug filled life is a bad thing seems awfully foolish. I have seen firsthand the downside to a life using drugs and it is not a good life in any sense. I don't know what is included in the costs some have quoted but as one who pays the bills for my testing program they seem awfully high. My consortium charges $65 for a random drug test (marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, certain muscle relaxors and pain killers as well as a couple others on the prohibited list) and an additional $25 for a random alcohol test (they are done at the same time and alcohol testing is not always required). Post accident testing runs about $140 and covers a wider variety of substances tested. Sorry to rant - but the subject of drugs in our society and how we handle them is a touchy subject for me, especially when those who voice "cost to much", "violates their rights", "think of the kids first" arguments have not stepped up and put forth a solution that addresses those issues and protects MY interests as one who pays for the users foolishness. Regards Gateway Kid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 On the surface it sounds good, but when you start adding up the numbers, it's gonna cost a LOT more than any savings the state might be touting. Not defending any druggies, just stating the facts. By the time the state pays for the testing, AND the rehab/treatment program, and this all come from TAXPAYER bucks too, the drug testing and rehab/treatment ends up costing about four times what they were paying out in benefits to the druggie in the first place. Add the fact that the recipient can challenge this in court, well, you do the math. Bodine. You are correct in some regards, but I think there is a flaw in your reasoning on the treatment part of this. While the state might indeed foot the bill for drug treatment for welfare recipients, I suspect after many years working in the legal system the bulk of the people who might fail a drug screen would not want treatment. Many people would be fearful of the consequences of a drug screen and would refuse to take it in the first place. Appeals processes generally require lawyers, and these people cannot afford them and the issue is civil and does not entitle the appellant to free legal representation. finally, if a drug user went to treatment and stopped using drugs the benefits might well outweigh the costs. PS I am neither for or against the policy-I am however, curious to see if it works. I do not think it is unconstitutional on a federal level, but at the state level, it may have some problems in certain states that have more restrictive state constitutions. (Looking at Tennessee's State Constitution, it is more difficult to say that it would be constitutional as we have a much stronger right of privacy.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Shapiro Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Nope,not the only one. Missourah done it last month, Gov. Nixon signed it into law. On the surface it sounds good, but when you start adding up the numbers, it's gonna cost a LOT more than any savings the state might be touting. Not defending any druggies, just stating the facts. By the time the state pays for the testing, AND the rehab/treatment program, and this all come from TAXPAYER bucks too, the drug testing and rehab/treatment ends up costing about four times what they were paying out in benefits to the druggie in the first place. Add the fact that the recipient can challenge this in court, well, you do the math. It's just a "feel-good" piece of truly worthless legislation to make people think the government is doing something besides screwing us. Bodine. State shouldn't be paying for any of that. The recipient should find a way to pay for it if they want a govt. check. And if they fail, they oughtta be cut off for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodine Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 For the record, I don't believe the Gov.'t ought to be offering easy money to deadbetas in the first place. I would bet 90% of those receiving free benefits are fully capable of working. I am against all nanny state programs, including random drug testing anyone anywhere without probable cause. But when the Gov. gets involved, it always, and I mean always costs more than any benefit to the public in return. In the words of a former President: "Government IS the problem." OK, I'll be quiet now. Bodine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlicLee SASS #16638 Life Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I would like the following televised to the public, somehow, trap all congress and the WH and pres in one of their chambers and give them all drug test as we watch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trigger Mike Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 So to be on welfare and use drugs is bad. To be employed and use drugs is good. To not be on welfare or legally employeed is good? Drug users children going hungry is good due to no money to buy food. they don't have money to feed them younguns now, they waste it on drugs. We just had a couple of places discovered that will sell you anything for your food stamp money, they charge more for it, but you can get anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Charlie, SASS # 48668L Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 So to be on welfare and use drugs is bad....YUP!! To be employed and use drugs is good....Who said that? To not be on welfare or legally employeed is good?...DAMN STRAIGHT!! Drug users children going hungry is good due to no money to buy food....WTH?? I'll be honest....I haven't read this thread all the way through. I only got to yours....and it thinking like yours that has put us in exactly the prediciment that we are trying to get out of!! I'm not bashfull! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el Gato Gordo - SASS #15162 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Nope,not the only one. Missourah done it last month, Gov. Nixon signed it into law. On the surface it sounds good, but when you start adding up the numbers, it's gonna cost a LOT more than any savings the state might be touting. Not defending any druggies, just stating the facts. By the time the state pays for the testing, AND the rehab/treatment program, and this all come from TAXPAYER bucks too, the drug testing and rehab/treatment ends up costing about four times what they were paying out in benefits to the druggie in the first place. Add the fact that the recipient can challenge this in court, well, you do the math. It's just a "feel-good" piece of truly worthless legislation to make people think the government is doing something besides screwing us. Bodine. +1 And, what do you really think a person that is denied benefits is going to do? Starve? Watch his or her kids starve? Right now there aren't enough jobs to go around, and many folks who want to work have run through their unemployment insurance. A whole host of prescription meds will test positive, screwing many innocent folks. As for having to have a drug test for a job, in 40-some years of employment for dozens of different companies in seven different states, I have taken a drug test exactly once - due to a work comp injury of stepping on a nail on a job-site. Keep an eye on your crime rates for the answer to the above questions! Buena suerte, amigos eGG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rye Miles #13621 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 It's a conundrum. Those who test positive suddenly have their meager source of income cut off... not hard to imagine what they'll do to replace it - at least some of them. I'm wonderin' if any "savings" will be more than offset by either increased policing costs or cost to the public in the form of increased crime. Arrgghh...! Good point Hardpan but also if these folks are refused welfare because of drugs maybe they'll finally be forced to get off 'em. (I know naive huh?) Most places test for drugs so they'll hafta get off or not work at all. I doubt they'll all start stealing. I think it's a BIG problem but I also think that the majority of Americans would be behind this on a national level. Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Mushman Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 +1 And, what do you really think a person that is denied benefits is going to do? Starve? Watch his or her kids starve? Right now there aren't enough jobs to go around, and many folks who want to work have run through their unemployment insurance. A whole host of prescription meds will test positive, screwing many innocent folks. As for having to have a drug test for a job, in 40-some years of employment for dozens of different companies in seven different states, I have taken a drug test exactly once - due to a work comp injury of stepping on a nail on a job-site. Keep an eye on your crime rates for the answer to the above questions! Buena suerte, amigos eGG In my 44+ years of employment I'm nearing triple figures for drug testing. I can pee in the bottle with the best of 'em! I watched mandatory drug testing for the DoD totally help clean up the "hollow force" of the late '70s and early '80s. Study after study (scientific, peer reviewed) has shown absolutley NO link between crime rate and economic conditions, contrary to popular myth (and almost all started out with the opposite hypothesis). This was surprising to many and there are other first order factors which seem to drive it, instead. As of 2010 only 50% of the public paid Income Taxes (I'm not talking about payroll taxes). De Toqueville may have been right about what would ultimately destroy our democratic Republic. Those receiving public funds should be subject to minimum, proven qualifications, especially when only half of our citizens are footing the bill for everyone! There SHOULD BE A SAFETY NET for those really deserving (we are not talking about those few here), but we have a hugely growing set of "GAMERS" who live off the rest of us and suck all of us further down together, without any postive contribution or accountablity. Harvey ( Who remembers the days when personal responsibility and accountability were paramount and folks were self motivated to get off the public dole rather than make it a way of life - including the "victim" mentality) Flame on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deja Vous Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Gosh... as I wander about in my own little small town brain I find it hard to believe so many would cheat that system. I have no doubts some will, we did have cheaters in high school. But wow, this is an eye opener. Do that many people do drugs? Do that many people live off of the working or use to be working people in our country with no good intentions of ever working themselves? I guess I have seen here in CA the number of people who come here with .. I think the term is anchor babies.. and live off of us. And GA was filled with that too because people would give them jobs and rent to them. But I have always believed MOST of us would prefer to work and take care of our own. I can see no problem with a law like this for the whole darn country.. just never knew we needed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The O'Meara Himself Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Bodine; Your reasoning about the costs involved may be right on, but sometimes its just not about money. Sometimes its about people taking improper advantage of a system designed with good intentions. (With wich, if you recall, the road to Hell is paved.) The O'Meara, himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.