"Downright Unconstitutional!!" Drug Screening for Welfare in Florida.

2011-07-02 18:52:56

#1

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/02/florid … ?hpt=hp_t2

Leave it to the democrats and the their fuckin' ACLU lapdogs to call drug testing for welfare unconstitutional. How the FUCK is drug testing to receive your free handout from the tax payers unconstitutional? Hell state employees are drug tested, why the hell should welfare recipients be excused?

Let me guess, it is racist as well, right?

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-02 18:56:34)

2011-07-02 18:57:03

#2

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5499|foggy bottom

you are a racist

Tu Stultus Es

2011-07-02 18:58:13

#3

Roger Lesboules: Ah ben tabarnak!; +316|6817|Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Québec!

I might get flamed, but i love and support the idea.

2011-07-02 19:00:10

#4

Trotskygrad: бля; +354|6239|Vortex Ring State

Roger Lesboules wrote:
I might get flamed, but i love and support the idea.

2011-07-02 19:22:29

#5

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6651|'Murka

"But think of the children!"

Oh wait...they did:

article wrote:
Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.

Sorry, but with that little gem in there, not sure the decriers have a leg to stand on.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-07-02 19:22:56

#6

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6392|what

lowing wrote:
Leave it to the democrats and the their fuckin' ACLU lapdogs

lol

Maybe you guys should look at the bigger picture? The welfare payments are used as support for families. If the dad is a drug user, should the children suffer economically for it also? Do they deserve to go hungry because the father is a habitual user?

edit: well with feos post, there isn't much of a problem

Last edited by AussieReaper (2011-07-02 19:24:40)

2011-07-02 19:24:21

#7

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6651|'Murka

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
Leave it to the democrats and the their fuckin' ACLU lapdogs
lol

Maybe you guys should look at the bigger picture? The welfare payments are used as support for families. If the dad is a drug user, should the children suffer economically for it also? Do they deserve to go hungry because the father is a habitual user?

Looks like someone didn't read the article.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-07-02 19:25:37

#8

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6392|what

FEOS wrote:
Looks like someone didn't read the article.

this isn't the first time these laws have been brought up

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510707,00.html

2011-07-02 19:28:52

#9

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6651|'Murka

AussieReaper wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Looks like someone didn't read the article.
this isn't the first time these laws have been brought up

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510707,00.html

I realize that. But as stated before, the diversion of benefits to account for children if someone comes up positive on a drug test is an excellent addition. And if they don't have kids...oh well.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-07-02 19:34:27

#10

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

FEOS wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Looks like someone didn't read the article.
this isn't the first time these laws have been brought up

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510707,00.html
I realize that. But as stated before, the diversion of benefits to account for children if someone comes up positive on a drug test is an excellent addition. And if they don't have kids...oh well.

Only problem with that is, what is keeping their brother or sister from collecting the money and simply handing it over to the drug user anyway. Plenty of holes in that idea

2011-07-02 19:35:52

#11

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
Leave it to the democrats and the their fuckin' ACLU lapdogs
lol

Maybe you guys should look at the bigger picture? The welfare payments are used as support for families. If the dad is a drug user, should the children suffer economically for it also? Do they deserve to go hungry because the father is a habitual user?

edit: well with feos post, there isn't much of a problem

yeah maybe you should read the article.

If the parents test positive, the kids should be removed from the home anyway and given a REAL chance at some sort of quality of life.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-02 19:39:07)

2011-07-02 19:38:08

#12

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6651|'Murka

That's what social workers are paid for, IIRC. There will always be opportunities for fraud. Particularly if you're dealing with drug abusers. But if the family members are clean, then there's a decent chance they will have the needs of the kids first in their minds and won't play those reindeer games.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-07-02 19:39:26

#13

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7011|PNW

The idea of giving someone money while they're on drugs is irksome, but if they don't get money because of it, more people will just turn to crime to support their habit and the crime rate will skyrocket.

This is another case where the 'war on drugs' does more harm than good by making it such an expensive commodity.

2011-07-02 19:40:55

#14

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

FEOS wrote:
That's what social workers are paid for, IIRC. There will always be opportunities for fraud. Particularly if you're dealing with drug abusers. But if the family members are clean, then there's a decent chance they will have the needs of the kids first in their minds and won't play those reindeer games.

You have parents on welfare AND drugs, they obviously do not have the kids best interests in mind in the first place, why not support removing them from those assholes and place them in foster care where they may have a chance with people that really care for them?

2011-07-02 19:41:46

#15

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5418|Sydney

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The idea of giving someone money while they're on drugs is irksome, but if they don't get money because of it, more people will just turn to crime to support their habit and the crime rate will skyrocket.

This is another case where the 'war on drugs' does more harm than good by making it such an expensive commodity.

This ^

2011-07-02 19:55:32

#16

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The idea of giving someone money while they're on drugs is irksome, but if they don't get money because of it, more people will just turn to crime to support their habit and the crime rate will skyrocket.

This is another case where the 'war on drugs' does more harm than good by making it such an expensive commodity.

Sorry I do not support the tax payers being extorted in fear of what these assholes might do if they don't get to draw a fuckin' check.

2011-07-02 20:00:55

#17

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5418|Sydney

I guess you could always carry a bigger gun around, right?

2011-07-02 20:14:05

#18

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:
I guess you could always carry a bigger gun around, right?

Neh, my .45 is big enough.

2011-07-02 20:17:00

#19

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6651|'Murka

lowing wrote:
FEOS wrote:
That's what social workers are paid for, IIRC. There will always be opportunities for fraud. Particularly if you're dealing with drug abusers. But if the family members are clean, then there's a decent chance they will have the needs of the kids first in their minds and won't play those reindeer games.
You have parents on welfare AND drugs, they obviously do not have the kids best interests in mind in the first place, why not support removing them from those assholes and place them in foster care where they may have a chance with people that really care for them?

ahem.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-07-02 20:19:26

#20

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6840|132 and Bush

Jaekus wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The idea of giving someone money while they're on drugs is irksome, but if they don't get money because of it, more people will just turn to crime to support their habit and the crime rate will skyrocket.

This is another case where the 'war on drugs' does more harm than good by making it such an expensive commodity.
This ^

They sell the foodstamps (the ebt card) for money to buy drugs.

Resident Floridian here. Good idea.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-02 20:20:23

#21

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

FEOS wrote:
lowing wrote:
FEOS wrote:
That's what social workers are paid for, IIRC. There will always be opportunities for fraud. Particularly if you're dealing with drug abusers. But if the family members are clean, then there's a decent chance they will have the needs of the kids first in their minds and won't play those reindeer games.
You have parents on welfare AND drugs, they obviously do not have the kids best interests in mind in the first place, why not support removing them from those assholes and place them in foster care where they may have a chance with people that really care for them?
ahem.

Yeah I read that FEOS, but if the parents are on welfare AND drugs, and the kids are still in their custody, then the social work is ineffective in protecting the kids.

2011-07-02 20:22:48

#22

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6840|132 and Bush

FEOS wrote:
"But think of the children!"

Oh wait...they did:

article wrote:
Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.
Sorry, but with that little gem in there, not sure the decriers have a leg to stand on.

and yea^

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-02 20:27:55

#23

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6651|'Murka

lowing wrote:
FEOS wrote:
lowing wrote:

You have parents on welfare AND drugs, they obviously do not have the kids best interests in mind in the first place, why not support removing them from those assholes and place them in foster care where they may have a chance with people that really care for them?
ahem.
Yeah I read that FEOS, but if the parents are on welfare AND drugs, and the kids are still in their custody, then the social work is ineffective in protecting the kids.

The positive drug test is proof that the parent is on drugs. That is the first step in removing the children from the situation (ie, the social worker's job). They place the children with other family members when at all possible, rather than putting them into the foster system, for obvious reasons. That is not always the best situation, but it normally is.

Just throwing a kid into foster care because their parent is on drugs, not looking to family options first, is a surefire way to fuck that kid up for a long time.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-07-02 20:30:22

#24

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

FEOS wrote:
lowing wrote:
FEOS wrote:
ahem.
Yeah I read that FEOS, but if the parents are on welfare AND drugs, and the kids are still in their custody, then the social work is ineffective in protecting the kids.
The positive drug test is proof that the parent is on drugs. That is the first step in removing the children from the situation (ie, the social worker's job). They place the children with other family members when at all possible, rather than putting them into the foster system, for obvious reasons. That is not always the best situation, but it normally is.

Just throwing a kid into foster care because their parent is on drugs, not looking to family options first, is a surefire way to fuck that kid up for a long time.

Ok if we agree that the second the parents pop for drugs while on welfare the kids are removed. and placed in some sort of stable environment I am good with it.

Yeah I was thinking you were saying once the parents pop for drugs while on welfare that a social worker is assigned to them for monitoring, while I was saying the kids needed to be removed then and there, and whatever money goes toward the kids and not the druggies..The losers not getting a single chance to getting a hold of that money, even in the name of the kids.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-02 20:37:44)

2011-07-02 20:48:19

#25

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5418|Sydney

Kmar wrote:
Jaekus wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The idea of giving someone money while they're on drugs is irksome, but if they don't get money because of it, more people will just turn to crime to support their habit and the crime rate will skyrocket.

This is another case where the 'war on drugs' does more harm than good by making it such an expensive commodity.
This ^
They sell the foodstamps (the ebt card) for money to buy drugs.

Resident Floridian here. Good idea.

So what is going to happen once they receive welfare? Will there be the option of going into rehab, pass the tests again and either receive benefits again and/or assistance to re-enter the workforce?

BF2S Forums "Downright Unconstitutional!!" Drug Screening for Welfare in Florida.

Roger Lesboules wrote:

article wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

article wrote:

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Board footer