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

Kmar wrote:

Old people pay into social security and Medicare their whole life.

The average baby boomer gets out twice as much tax as they've paid in.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Old people pay into social security and Medicare their whole life.

The average baby boomer gets out twice as much tax as they've paid in.

Where did you find that? Paid in to what?

Uzique wrote:

it's funny because it seems that every 'serious' poster here has a very narrow and select definition of what a 'worthy' job and citizen is... and it is almost entirely always basically limited to their own profession/industry/lifestyle. wonderfully stimulating.

Way to generalize.

@ Jaekus: What you're getting at is broader welfare reform, which tends to be a political third rail. The recipients don't want any changes, the other side (generally Republicans) want massive changes. The right answer is somewhere in the middle, that provides assistance, but still incentivizes the recipient to find long-term employment (which requires movement on the employer side, as well). It was tried under Clinton (bipartisan with the Republican-controlled Congress), and was generally successful. But more needs to be done, and at the state level.

Macbeth wrote:

I don't want to get married, and am not going to get old.?

Dignitas or pistol?

lowing wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

I'm only ok with this if alcohol is included in the screening.

well, that will only be good if they show up drunk. wouldn't mean anything if they can stay drunk all the way up until "check day", then go draw a check.

Alcohol metabolites can be detected in urine for up to 3 days after ingestion.

jord wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I don't want to get married, and am not going to get old.?

Dignitas or pistol?

seppuku

If it is legal for an employer to drug test employees, it should be just as legal to drug test welfare recipients.

Macbeth wrote:

Calling something unconstitutional is becoming the new race card. Just a thought.

Except it can be conclusively determined by law.

rdx-fx wrote:

If it is legal for an employer to drug test employees, it should be just as legal to drug test welfare recipients.

That's fairly non sequitur. There are glaring differences between those two circumstances.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing 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.

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.

Then solve one aspect of the problem at a deeper root: remove some of the black market value of drugs by slowly rolling back laws against them, controlling production and clinically weening people off them entirely.

We're not going to win the "war on drugs" any more than we won the war on alcohol.

Why not attack it on multiple fronts? http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-0 … otic-pills

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing 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.

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.

Then solve one aspect of the problem at a deeper root: remove some of the black market value of drugs by slowly rolling back laws against them, controlling production and clinically weening people off them entirely.

We're not going to win the "war on drugs" any more than we won the war on alcohol.

I am all for legalizing drugs, taxing the shit out of it, and letting the people that choose to do drugs, figure their problem out for themselves. I do not support legalizing drugs, only to spend taxpayer money trying to save them from their own stupidity.

There were a group of Maori blokes who lived below my sister's old place. They had expensive shit, they smoked a lot of pot, probably did other drugs too, drank heavily. The majority of them were on welfare - disability and unemployment. I think one of them worked. I also remember working like a dog at a supermarket and having a conversation with a customer who thought it was hilarious that I was working as hard at I was at a shitty place. He told me the benefits of welfare, how he loved his lifestyle and always had enough for beer, cigarettes and a lotto ticket. There was also this artist who received a Government arts grant to put on an exhibition about how people should never be forced to work in jobs they don't like and if faced with such horrors they should just live on welfare until their dream job floats past their window.

Welfare should never cater to these types of people. Don't get me wrong I am all for welfare but not as a lifestyle choice, it's a safety net.

I've always been for tighter regulation on who gets welfare. Anyone who is not actively seeking employment if they are able to should not get the dole. You'd be surprised what jobs you can find when you're really desperate. Anyone on disability, and there are some laughable disability claims, should be only those who have no other option. Basically anyone who gets any type of welfare who's not actively working to get themselves off welfare, (unless they are in circumstances where this is impossible,) should have their welfare either reduced or cut. While the act itself can be seen as counter-productive the threat of it is likely to get people off their arses.

Drugs are another thing. I see no issue with requiring drugs tests; if you're receiving public money the public has a right to know if you're wasting it. If you're deep enough in the shit that you need welfare then you should at very least be willing to be frugal with the money that is generously given to you by the public. This could mean saving it or spending it on necessities; bills, food, rent/mortgage and anything that goes towards helping you find a job. Luxuries, and this includes alcohol, drugs, electronics etc. are not on this list. I'm not sure how those aforementioned Maori blokes managed to buy expensive TVs, a PS3 and a nice new motorbike on welfare but I know I sure as Hell can't afford those things so something's not right here. I'm not suggesting that accountants go through everything a welfare recipient spends, which only means more bureaucracy and more wasted tax money, but at the very least they can see if the person they're giving money to is a junkie. There are better things for public money to go towards than some fuckwit who's not going to even try contributing to society.

From there? Well I don't want to make this another arm on the war on drugs, I'm not suggesting anyone caught smoking pot should be denied welfare. I just want welfare recipients to know that because they are living off public funds they are being monitored and if they don't prove themselves worthy they risk losing their welfare. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Test a junkie and then instead of giving him welfare get him through rehab.

He won't be able to get a job anyway and if you deny him welfare he'll turn to crime. I think paying for rehab is about as expensive for the gov. as it is to pay out welfare so that should even it out.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-07-04 02:03:18)