What a fucking waste of time.
If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free.
Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill on Tuesday that requires benefit recipients to undergo drug testing.
Applicants for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment.
Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving the funds for three years.
"While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Scott said. "This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars."
If welfare candidates pass the drug screening, they'll be reimbursed for the test.
The legislation instantly came under a barrage of criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union and several of the Sunshine State's Democrats. They argued the bill is an invasion of privacy.
"The wasteful program created by this law subjects Floridians who are impacted by the economic downturn, as well as their families, to a humiliating search of their urine and body fluids without cause or even suspicion of drug abuse," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.
"Searching the bodily fluids of those in need of assistance is a scientifically, fiscally, and constitutionally unsound policy. Today, that unsound policy is Florida law."
The law, which will be enacted July 1, is likely to be challenged. A similar bill was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in Michigan in 2003.
So are the kids the program is designed to help going to have to take a drug test too?%0D\
I can''t understand why people insist on penalizing the children of irresponsible parents. Isn''t it bad enough that they have to live with drug addicts and alcoholics?
I''m actually for this.\
Not ashamed that I am.
With their hordes of kids I''m sure there''s no shortage of clean piss.
What if they test positive for Oxycontin, which is a legal drug, and it turns out they doctor-shopped for it, amassing hundreds and hundreds of tablets like Floridian Rush Limbaugh did?\
Will they be treated like Limbaugh, ie, suffer no legal consequences?
r2 There is a word for people like you and Gov. Rick Scott. It''s FASCIST. But, nothing to be ashamed of....
Well I am all for it as well, after all though I don''t live in Florida it is certainly my tax dollars.
Yikes! Good luck to the population of Florida as a whole!
R4, please copy and paste that comment on every Floridian news site. You nailed it.
I guess I''d be okay with it. If when a parent tests positive for drugs then the state automatically removes their children from the home and places them in foster care. %0D\
Ah hell maybe we should just drug test everybody - especially politicians.
Are taxpayers obligated to finance others'' drug habits? What rights do taxpayers have over how their tax dollars are allocated?
No one asks about taxpayers and their rights
r10 Ask the C.I.A.
These days you need to do it to get a lot of entry-level jobs. I''m not surprised they are forcing it on benefit recipients.
I don''t think this is objectionable at all.\
In fact I think anyone who gets welfare, male or female, should be injected with contraceptive hormones.\
At the very least, anyone who fathers or bears a child while on welfare should have their children taken from them.
The drug testing is to funnel business into his medical venture, which specializes in drug testing. Rachel was all over this last night. Someone recall this crook.
Seriously, is drug testing required of politicians?\
If not, why not?\
Have the League of Women Voters do all the sample collection and send it to various labs in states other than the one represented by the pol.
Well, what do you propose be done with addicts who will be cut off from any income? Think people. You can''t just put them all in jail or lock them up in underfunded state facilities. Do you want them turning to crime? Do you want to see them starve to death or die of exposure on the streets? Homelessness is a problem that should be addressed, not ignored or in this case encouraged.
I heard that Scott has financial ties to the corporation that does the drug testing and that''s why he''s pushing it. All these crazy, extreme Republican governors are cutting their own throats, their poll numbers are dropping by the minute.
r16 These people don''t care about any misery suffered by others. As long as they can preen and posture about the moral high-ground while stuffing their pockets, to hell with everyone else.
It''s obvious. Print more money, give it to the taxpayers and then take it from them with more taxation, then give the money to the drug addicted so they can feed their drug habit.
This is the only solution
[quote]Well, what do you propose be done with addicts who will be cut off from any income? Think people.\
You think. Why should anyone have to work and pay taxes to subsidize people who refuse to seek treatment? There is no incentive to change without a "bottom." Any recovered addict or anyone with any experience with addicts will tell you that. If you, personally, feel compelled to help out more, then you are free to do so. Take an addict home to live with you. Adopt-an-addict, that can be a new non-profit program. \
[quote]preen and posture about the moral high-ground while stuffing their pockets,\
I do think it is morally preferable to work, than to take handouts. As to the "stuffing their pockets" part, you are talking about tax money. So technically you are accusing people who have worked for a living of stuffing their pockets with their own money.
I do think mandatory drug testing for any elected official is a great idea. Long past its time.
r20 Actually, dipshit, I was referring to the politicians and corporations that propose, endorse, and profit from civil rights travesties like the law being discussed. Sorry if I wasn''t clear enough about that.
"Dipshit" is not an argument
[quote]I was referring to the politicians and corporations that propose, endorse, and profit from civil rights travesties like the law being discussed. Sorry if I wasn''t clear enough about that.\
So it''s okay with you if politicians you agree with use drugs. Just not the other.
They''re sick people. For Christ''s sake. You expect them to come to a rational conclusion to their addiction issues? And addicts aside, what about false positives, or people who just want to enjoy a joint. Your governor is creating problems, not solving them. What about people on disability? They have to inconvenience themselves, with limited resources and perhaps mobility, into making sure they piss in one of Rick Scott''s drug treatment labs every month? Does legitimate medication show up as illicit drugs? What do poor people do if they''re cut off? This is simple insult to injury.
The aid recipients also have to come up with $30 apiece to pay for the test (at one of Rick Scott''s facilities) up front. They get the money back if they pass, but not if they don''t.\
I''m surprised there is support of this on DL. Say a mom and dad smoked a joint. For that, they should be forced into (taxpayer funded) rehab and have their kids taken away?\
Will you also support it when they start drug testing HIV positive people in public programs, and denying them assistance with medication if it turns out they''ve smoked pot?
r23 No, it''s an insult. Or, in your case, a given.
r24 Where did I say I was okay with anybody using drugs? Stop attributing things to people that they clearly didn''t assert.
r26 Oh god, here it comes.
Most of the racist and classist freaks on this board would agree with this, OP.
[quote]They're sick people. For Christ's sake. You expect them to come to a rational conclusion to their addiction issues?
Yes I do! And I believe they can. Because I've seen it happen. Sorry you think less of these folks. Clearly you have no experience with recovery. But it does take "hitting bottom" to turn it around. You have to allow adults to do that. Coddling is not the answer.
[quote]And addicts aside, what about false positives, or people who just want to enjoy a joint.
People who just want to enjoy a joint should find another means of support than welfare! Jesus! Who paid for the fucking pot?
False positives are very, very rare. I think people should be able to appeal if they are found positive, and that would eliminate any doubt to nearly nil.
By the way, it is not a "false positive" if your drug test shows that you've been smoking pot if you have been smoking pot!
[quote]What about people on disability? They have to inconvenience themselves, with limited resources and perhaps mobility, into making sure they piss in one of Rick Scott's drug treatment labs every month?
People on disability are not on welfare. It is a completely different system. Now I know you have not clue one what you are talking about!
[quote]Does legitimate medication show up as illicit drugs?
All they have to do is provide a legitimate prescription for the drugs that will show up.
[quote]What do poor people do if they're cut off?
They GET A FUCKING JOB is what! A job is not an insult!
[quote]Say a mom and dad smoked a joint. For that, they should be forced into (taxpayer funded) rehab and have their kids taken away?\
If someone is stupid enough to smoke pot knowing they will lose their benefits and thus their kids'' financial net, then they are unfit to parent. And taxpayer funded rehab is much cheaper than keeping them on the dole for years and years and years.\
[quote]Will you also support it when they start drug testing HIV positive people in public programs, and denying them assistance with medication if it turns out they''ve smoked pot?\
That would be medically-prescribed pot, so it doesn''t apply.
Dear, if Scott were busy creating jobs he wouldn''t have time for ill conceived class warfare like this stunt.
$30 is a lot for somebody on welfare to budget. Interest should be accrued for the loan if the state pays them back for their paranoid need to inconvenience poor people.
Once again, just like the larger society, the "outraged" taxpayers of DL come out in force complaing about "welfare cheats" and lazy good-for-nothing (read black/hispanic) drug addicts ripping off honest, hard working citizens.%0D\
Meanwhile, Halliburton/KBR (among other war profiteers) ripped off taxpayers for billions of dollars and nary a word is uttered by these same taxpayers. %0D\
Meanwhile, professional politicians, like the Republican governors of PA, NJ, WI, rack up huge salaries and benefits during their "careers," and when they finally retire and stop sucking at the public teat, they peddle their influence and access to the highest bidder, racking up millions in so-called consulting fees. And once again, outraged taxpayers, like R31/R32 say and no nada.
How nice for the children.
R32, there is no medical marijuana law in Florida. By state and federal law, pot is always a criminal offense. Even if you''re ill.
I agree with this also. If you can afford pot, you don''t need welfare.
This is another ploy by republicans to funnel tax payers money to themselves or corporations. Why do people think this is ok?
The answer is obvious. Because Halliburton successfully ripped off taxpayers, we need to guarantee all instances of fraud across the board.
R36 is correct
r39 Thanks, Dad.
r40 Because it allows people to mask their racism and hatred of poor people as being responsible citizens looking out for the good of our country.
I''m all for social nets, but only for people who want to do better for themselves. "Tough Liberalism" I call it. Unlimited financial help, with no responsibility or accountancy is just as detrimental as no help at all because it creates generations of poverty and dependency.
The sad thing is that welfare scams/abuse also happen a lot. Many corner stores in poverty stricken areas will accept food stamps in exchange for cigarettes and alcohol which are banned items.
r44 No, lousy public education, an overbearing criminal justice system, lack of organized labor, unregulated industry and overt/covert racism create generations of poverty and dependency.
If politicians want to take on welfare fraud, they can also take on corporate welfare fraud (yeah, right). Fraud''s bad all around, right?
No, that''s not really that sad. What is sad is that many working Americans, that is, people with jobs, qualify for food stamps, energy assistance, and Medicaid. \
Also sad, people who think that taking kids off of parents for reasons other than abuse or neglect will actually save the state money. Yeah, foster care doesn''t cost anything.
Reading the comments on this subject has made me very sad. Mean, stupid people are the worst. Congrats.
I understand it like a naive ninny from hades at a bare assed minimum just because if you have kids and are on Welfare you should not be doing illegal drugs. But, there should also be Welfare to work programs nationwide and all of that as well. %0D\
There are cities in our country who have hot beds of multi-generational Welfare recipients and there is a correlation with all of that and crime. Two professors at the University of Memphis did a study on that and the results were not all that great. I haven''t the time to look it up for everyone and am sorry.%0D\
Now I do not think there should be any of this if someone has, for example, AIDS and is on disability. I know that disability and Welfare are not the same thing and all, but this type of thing over in Florida could trickle on down.
There are a ton of elderly people in Florida on welfare. And a lot of them are the primary caretakers for their grandchildren. I guess grandma will be pissing in a cup. \
And I also wonder who''s going to do all this work. He just eliminated hundreds of DCF positions last week.
[quote]And I also wonder who''s going to do all this work. He just eliminated hundreds of DCF positions last week.\
Excellent point, R51. For budgetary reasons, recipients will be presumed to be abusing illicit substances unless and until they prove otherwise.
It''s wrong to require drug testing for people who need welfare. \
Drug addicts don''t waste their time on welfare; it''s simply not enough money to fund their habits.\
And the fact that a politician is going to financially benefit from this is just so unbelievably corrupt.
I see no answers about the drug use, the pot smoking which apparently all good liberals promote among the poor and the sick, and the pot buying, which apparently all good progressives endorse as a right to be subsidized by people who work for a living.\
Y''all better be glad you have a good President, because this is the same shit Democrats LOSE on year after year after year after year, and rightfully so if they don''t get their collective ass together.\
Has fuck all to do with people getting high IN YOUR FACE on the public dime. It''s not that people are too stupid to get it. It''s that there is a culture of corruption and it has to stop somewhere, and if it stops in your neighborhood first that is maybe not such a bad thing.\
But the only place you see the BAD face of welfare is in working class neighborhoods, and the "progressives" who like to champion the "underdog" wrongly side with people who are not even remotely interested in voting.
[quote]Drug addicts don''t waste their time on welfare; it''s simply not enough money to fund their habits.\
Sorry, untrue, easier than many less pleasant alternatives\
[quote]And the fact that a politician is going to financially benefit from this is just so unbelievably corrupt.\
Now that is true. Absolutely, he should derive no economic benefit from it at all.
Plus he does need to go through a piss test. All legislators should take a piss test before introducing any new legislation, from the bicameral Houses of Congress down to school board, you ask me.
Save some time
[quote]pot is always a criminal offense. Even if you''re ill.\
Marinol is legal in every state.
Coming from a dirt poor and discriminated family, I''m glad I was born with parents who taught me to take responsibility for my choices, even though the choices were far, far fewer than others on the other side of town had. I was told as long as there was public education and libraries with access to free books, I had no justification for not obtaining knowledge. I was taught not to seek to place blame on others because it''s a large cesspool to get stuck and drown in (" stagnant pity party") but to step beyond and to never ever compare myself to those born with more but to look to my own self for the quality of my journey.
Glad I listened.
I wish this was going to be done for the right reasons. To catch people in the lower economic rungs of society who are addicted or self-medicating so that the addiction doesn''t become a generational problem. Like the welfare system is a generational problem. Then maybe you could actually get some of the children off the welfare system. And before anyone screams, I''ve done pro bono for county legal aid. And the welfare system has become generational and grandparents capable of taking care of their grandchildren in the lower economic rungs are going to become fewer and fewer as the years go by.
r50, there are also a high number of working poor in Florida on welfare. Having a job these days, a full time job, doesnt mean shit. \
Florida has the most vacant homes in the United States, even more than California, because the people cant afford them. And Rick Scott''s agenda is surely going to send the state further into the tailspin.\
Im holding out for a scandal. Something is off about Rick Scott. He is a crook and an asshole.
Since it''s so awful there, how about getting out of Florida?\
Don''t tell me it can''t be done.\
[italic]OMG There''s a Level 50 Hurricane bearing down on your ass, get out![/italic]\
People will find a way! People always do! The entire country is founded on this idea. \
I think corporations have too much goddamned power, that is what makes me a liberal. But I never signed on for this mommy take care of me horseshit, and I''m tired of it.
Do you care about "mommy take care of me" for corporations, too? And how about "no, you can''t marry your same-sex partner"?
[quote]Since it''s so awful there, how about getting out of Florida?\
Why dont you tell that to the carpetbaggers who move here everyday? THEY are the people driving the state in the ground, and Rick Scott is one of them.
If I have to be drug tested and stay drug-free to keep my job, then welfare recipients should too.
r64, tell that to the 500 laid off DCF workers who will now be on welfare.
Sorry I''m all for it. Was raised on welfare and thankfully mom didn''t toke or hit the pipe but she did booze. Fast forward 30 years later one of my sisters turned into a crackhead while on welfare I WISHED they had tested her back then and taken my nephews from her. As it, one turn out so-so the other nephew is in JAIL.\
Test them get them treatment take the kids away do what it takes to get their broke druggy asses cleaned up!
What is the state of Florida''s largest agency? \
The prison system. \
It''s the third largest prison system in the US. \
Guess what the GOP is doing in Florida?\
Privatizing the prison system. \
A private prison system would LOVE drug testing of welfare recipients -- mo'' prisoners! \
After that, people on disability or food programs in Florida will get checked for drugs. \
Mo'' prisoners ! Mo'' money for corporations! \
Can you see why we have a war on drugs? It''s an endless cash cow for the corporatocracy.
[quote]I think corporations have too much goddamned power, that is what makes me a liberal.\
That''s what makes you a libertarian. Your ''get a fucking job'' and sterilize the poor mindset, not so much.
r66 You really think a state that is charging welfare recipients $30 to pay for their own drug tests is going to provide them with something as expensive as treatment?
[quote] That''s what makes you a libertarian\
Libertarians are against government power, not against corporate power. Libertarians claim, time and time again, that government needs to get out of the way so that "fair market forces" will deliver the best job for the best price. Of course, libertarians are against anti- monopoly legislation (too much govmint interference!). Monopolies and lack of regulation are what give corporations their power. \
Libertarians are very much pro- corporate power.
[quote]What if they test positive for Oxycontin, which is a legal drug, and it turns out they doctor-shopped for it, amassing hundreds and hundreds of tablets like Floridian Rush Limbaugh did?\
[quote]Will they be treated like Limbaugh, ie, suffer no legal consequences?\
They would be denied Welfare. As would Limbaugh.\
Rocket Scientist Asshole is more like it.
[quote]Do you want to see them starve to death or die of exposure on the streets? \
Sounds cool to me.\
[quote]"welfare cheats" and lazy good-for-nothing (read black/hispanic) drug addicts ripping off honest, hard working citizens.\
Don''t forget the fucking scum Indians! ;)\
[quote]There are cities in our country who have hot beds of multi-generational Welfare recipients and there is a correlation with all of that and crime.\
R50 speaks the truth.
You apologists are all the same: "oh, those poor, poor, helpless little lambs! They can''t help it that they became addicted to nasty scary drugs, they''re VICTIMS of mean old society! They don''t need to be held accountable for their actions, they need chocolate and hugs and all the free money they can hold!"\
I''ve got news that will no doubt come as a huge shock to many of you: these people CHOOSE to become addicts! \
They CHOOSE to experiment with drugs, they CHOOSE to get high every chance they get, and they CHOOSE to breed because it''s easier and more profitable than getting a job!\
I am astonished and disappointed at the naivete of some of you.
r74 It''s laughable for you to decry the "naivete" of others. You obviously have the most white-bread, small-minded, suburban worldview on this thread. You and the others like you (especially the reprehensible r73 ) are ignorant and hateful pricks, blaming the marginalized people in society for everything you don''t like.
If all those unemployed drug users who get...%0D\
[quote]Unlimited financial help, with no responsibility or accountancy %0D\
...would just stop being so damned lazy and get jobs then economy would recover.
Where do welfare recieptients get unlimited financial help? I''m moving there.
You''re the naive one, r74, if you don''t realise that drug-taking behaviour has occurred in all human societies since the dawn of civilization. Does anyone think taking children away from parents who, say, test positive for cannabis, found by many experts to be associated with fewer harms than alcohol, is going to relieve their disadvantage? This is going to criminalise more people, punish their children too, and exacerbate their disadvantage. Anyone who agrees with this is an out and out moron.
It''s really a dumb law. Though I''m not against it in principle because many jobs require a piss test and have for well over 10 years, the recipents will do the same thing we all do...%0D\
No drugs while looking for a job. Simple!%0D\
I was in finance and had to take a piss test for every new job, as did everyone else.
But you''re urinating for a corporation who has a vested interest in seeing that they have able minded employees to do work. Why is it in the state''s interest that welfare recipients be drug free? It''s a question worth asking. I think there are a lot more productive things for society to tend to than micromanaging the poor. At least create micromanaging jobs if you''re that fixated on seeing that the poor are living in a way that is acceptable to you.
The cost of administering these drug tests will far outweigh any financial benefit gained. This is going to cost Florida a fortune.
I guess one could argue that the state (and its citizens) have a vested interest in a welfare recipient being drug free in order to build skills and/or be employable. %0D\
Like I said it is a dumb law. And, yes, I think it is the usual vindictiveness against the poor. It is all about shaming and kicking someone in the teeth while they are down. White collar crime cost a hell of a lot more than what we spend on welfare.%0D\
I disagree about the corporate drug tests. I''d rather someone who spoked some pot on the weekend over a weekend alcoholic benderer.
Not if Florida contracts a private company to do the testing, then throws anyone testing positive into a private jail. In fact, if the company who does the drug testing us a shell company for various companies who run private prisons, the cost of testing will be a wash\
Also, a private company can falsify results and claim all kinds of people ineligible for welfare. Then they give a kickback to pols in the form of "campaign contributions" and the pols reward them with more privateering of things formerly done by the state.
[quote]Why is it in the state''s interest that welfare recipients be drug free?\
So the state (the working taxpayers) can be sure that they aren''t paying for drugs for other people who are not working.
[quote]I''d rather someone who spoked some pot on the weekend over a weekend alcoholic benderer.%0D\
May I quote you?
[quote]Not if Florida contracts a private company to do the testing\
Would a public company be less subject to corruption?
[quote]then throws anyone testing positive into a private jail.\
Subject to public laws
[quote]if the company who does the drug testing us a shell company for various companies who run private prisons, the cost of testing will be a wash\
You are just pulling streamers out of your ass at this point. Do you have any accusations about shell companies providing bogus testing results for private prisons in the state of Florida? Or does it just piss you off that people on welfare won''t get to smoke pot?
Yes, but only if you correct the spoked to smoked before you quote.
R82 and haven''t spoked pot in months! I swear!
[quote]Also, a private company can falsify results and claim all kinds of people ineligible for welfare.\
And lots of people can falsify all sorts of information to get welfare, such as "I am a responsible non drug-taking citizen who deserves to be given free money and I am a good parent."
Aren''t most welfare recipients unwed mothers or grandmothers raising abandoned children? Welfare is kind of a trap because it discourages seeking employment and education for those who may wish to pursue it. You don''t make enough to fund daycare but it still provides better than a minimum wage job.
Doctors are the biggest drug abusers. Are they tested? You know-before they start slicing?
[quote]I''ve done pro bono for county legal aid\
So have I, though it was mainly protective orders. And the main reason for the protective order was that the gentleman in question (yes it was always a man) was HIGH and had nothing better to do with his time (such as a JOB)
R91, I believe federal law requires the recipient to be in a job search and work program in order to get assistance. The state will not receive federal money for welfare if it doesn''t. It is the case in NYC and was mandated in the Welfare to Work legislation in the 1990s.%0D\
[quote]Doctors are the biggest drug abusers. Are they tested? You know-before they start slicing?\
Oh, piss test them too! They have to wash up anyway! Absolutely piss test everybody! I want to piss test people before they get on the bus! People will think I am kidding but they will be mistaken!\
Piss test the world!
Working Class Hero bump
Nice bump, R13, 20, 21, 23, 24, 31, 32, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 84, 86, 87, 88, 90, 93, 95, and 96.\
I think we know your opinion by now, what with your posting 1/5th of the responses on this thread. Why look for an argument when you''ll never change your mind?\
Also, you''re a pathetic fuck and now everyone knows it.
Thank you, Trolldar.
Apparently you have nothing worthwhile to respond to anything I''ve said. I stand by my positions, though I don''t even know yours, if you have one other than hall monitor.\
I think people who are on welfare should not be allowed to use the money given to them to buy drugs. People who work should not be forced to subsidize addiction.\
I think people who are on welfare should be tested for drugs, and if they are found to be using drugs, public money should be taken away from them.\
I think people who are on welfare should not bear or sire children while they are on welfare, and if they do, they should be taken off public support.\
You are the pathetic fuck, R97. I have opinions and I have expressed them clearly. I have met with nothing but strawmen and ad hominem attacks. YOU and your ilk, are pathetic and cowardly since you can do nothing but call names and count posts. You have no real argument, and no opinion that is born of actual real-life experience.
[quote]I have opinions and I have expressed them clearly.\
And so, after expressing your opinions clearly (which I agree you''ve done, even if I disagree with your opinions) in OVER 20 POSTS in a thread that hasn''t reached 100 yet, you BUMP it?\
Why? Because you''re looking for more of an outlet for your anger or hatred of the poor or the addicted, or whatever drives you. You''re still looking to yell down anyone who disagrees with you. Shouldn''t saying it 20 TIMES be enough?\
You have an absolute lack of empathy, as evidenced by all your yellow posts I have been reading. I would guess you''re a sociopath.
Only sterilized people should be eligible for welfare.
Why is it that Republicans love to subject the poor to even more humiliation and hardship than they are already experiencing?
Because it simultaneously satiates the evaporating middle and working classes and scares them into submission, r101.
>> If welfare candidates pass the drug screening, they'll be reimbursed for the test%0D
broke people without jobs don't have the money to get a drug test%0D
>> R20 , Why should anyone have to work and pay taxes to subsidize people who refuse to seek treatment?%0D
There are no treatment beds/programs available in Florida for people without insurance or their own money to pay for treatment. Florida has really been hit hard with drug addiction in the past 10 years. And of course, every year the funding for treatment programs gets cut more and more. I'll bet Florida's evil governor cuts their funding even more this year. Treatment programs have waiting lists up to a year long. There are more than 900 treatment programs in Florida. 3/4 of them are for profit. Most nonprofit drug treatment programs are funded by the dept of corrections and they usually take court ordered drug addicts before they accept an average person seeking treatment. And nonprofit does NOT mean free treatment. They want to be paid and almost all of them demand the money up front. Out patient treatment programs have waiting lists up to a year long%0D
A newspaper did an expose on a 27 yr old prescription drug addicted woman who could not find an opening in a detox treatment program. There were none. This woman became addicted to the drugs that were prescribed to her from a Dr for a back injury and medical condition. She even had medicaid and none of the facilities had openings or would take her. The woman and her mother tried almost 60 different programs. None of them had an opening. She ended up dying%0D
I'd put money on it that the governor or a family member of his has abused or is addicted to drugs. This reminds me of closeted larry craig railing against gay people and rush limbaugh railing against black drug addicts, but he himself having one of the largest drug prescription drug addictions in world history. He admitted to taking 90 tabs extra extra strength hydrocodone (vicodin,lortab) a day for many years. I'm sure he took much, much more.%0D
R91, People can't just be on welfare forever anymore. Back when Bill Clinton was president, he and the Republican congress changed the welfare system. There are federal time limits on the amount of time a person can collect "welfare" benefits supported by federal funds of no more than 2 consecutive years and no more than a collective total of 5 years over a lifetime, some states can also decrease those time limits and require that recipients to be actively looking for a job, enrolled in school or some other type of job training program. The average repug doesn't even know this, but it doesn't stop them from spouting off about people who are on 'welfare'.%0D
Some states also have laws that anyone who has been convicted of any type of drug offense (even misdemeanor offenses) is forever ineligible to receive food stamps.Good old America, where we hold everything anyone has ever done against them forever
Sorry you are indignant about being caught blowing diarrhea all over the thread, R98. 20-plus posts is really a bit much when you are stating your opinion over and over. I am no big fan of welfare recipients toking weed either, but don''t feel the need to holler it 20 times and insult everyone else on the board. \
Why are you here?
Here''s why I oppose this drug testing:\
- the governor (via his wife) owns the companies that will perform the tests. so the governor directly profits from the tests.\
- it is expensive & a waste of money.\
- it''s totally not productive. if people are on drugs, then this is not the way to help them get off drugs.\
- pot should be legal. by no means is it worse than booze, and booze is not only legal, but ubiquitous.\
- poor people need help. my assumption is that they don''t get the anti-depressants & anti-anxiety meds that better off folks get. so it''s totally hypocritical to bust them for illegal drugs when everyone else is on legal drugs.
why should drug testing, a very successful business, not get welfare, when the oil industry does?
In NYC if cops raid an apartment in city-owned housing, the tenant can be evicted. Granny will loose the place when her visiting nephew was shooting up in the bathroom while she was away for the weekend on Long Island visiting a sister.
A couple reactions. %0D
Chemical addiction is a real and powerful neuological and psychological condition. Part of this mental disorder, like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, is denial and a resistance to treatment that frequently leads to experiences of physical and psychological withdrawal. Would you support cutting off benefits to someone with schizophrenia who doesn't want to take their meds or see a psychiatrist? %0D
Moral indignation is clouding your economic judgment. According to October 2006 document on the Florida Dept of Chidren and Families' website, the maximum monthly TANF benefit for a family of 5 with rent above $50 is $426. (Benfits are raised much more slowly than prevailing wages, but let's assume they increased to $447 by 2011.) %0D
$447x12=$5,364 per year. %0D
Most though not all families receiving TANF are headed by single mothers. %0D
If benefits stop and the mother turns to property or drug sales related crimes for income and is incarcerated, there are court and incarceration costs that will exceed that amount. According to the website for the FL Department of Correction, it costs an average of $19,469 to incarcerate each inmate for a year in 2009. That doesn't include pre-trial jail or court procedures costs. %0D
If children are removed from the parent's home and placed in foster care because of a mother's incarceration or because she is found unfit to provide care (usually preventive child welfare services are attempted to strengthen the family prior to removal if there is not an immediate safety risk to children in the home), the per child foster care payment to the foster caregiver in Florida ranged between $429-515 (depending on child's age) in 2005/2006. Using an average per child monthly foster care payment of $472, the annual foster care costs for 5 children removed from the household and placed in foster care would be $28,320 ($472x12 monthsx 5 children). %0D
So incarcerating a mother and sending her 5 children to foster care would result in annual public cost of $47,793 -- or $42,429 more than if the family received TANF payments. %0D
Granted, this would not be the result for all families. However, it is important to know that lack of a legal income -- even public benefits -- is associated with increased risk of committing crimes.
I support it!
I hope more states do this but go even further. If the parents keep failing drug tests they lose their custody of the children. No section 8 or apartment at taxpayers expense.
I believe there should be drug testing for corporate welfare recipients.
Yep, R112. In fact just to set a good example, I think that''s where we should start with the drug testing.
this is the stupidest idea ever. how will people support their children if they don''t get welfare? \
crime and prostitution, the age old last resorts of the poor, that''s how.
great idea- create a new criminal class!
I keep seeing posts like R111:\
[quote]I hope more states do this but go even further. If the parents keep failing drug tests they lose their custody of the children. \
And I wonder who they think will care for these children when they''re taken from their parent(s)? Did you even read the articles about Scott and the state of Florida cutting 500 jobs from the Department of Children and Families (DCF)?\
My retired sister is a CASA volunteer in Texas. These states don''t have enough paid professionals to keep track of needy children so they count on volunteers to shepherd the kids through the family court/foster family process. It is sickening how we treat the least of us.
I''m in charge here in Florida, whether you like it or not.
Rick Scott, Florida''s handsome, bald Governor
ITA r115. Florida DCF is at the brink. It is no coincidence that more children who are monitored by DCF are turning up dead left and right like Nubia Barahona. This new legislation will be add more work than the measly 80 additional "frontline" workers could ever handle. 80 workers plus for the 4th most populated state is the U.S. is absurd.
Drug testing for welfare is an attempt to increase hurdles facing those at the very bottom.
Florida and Michigan never presented any argument it was anything more than a chance to hit on poor people and the federal court therefore rejected the similar Michigan plan.
There has never evidence that testing will help the average person get a job, pay less in taxes, get better public services, etc.
Because the only demonstrable effect will be to make life harder for those at the bottom, do we support an action with no social or political benefit because it hurts poor people?
Does making poor people worse off help build the political strength of the large majority of Americans who work for a living? Does it make life better in anyway for the great majority?
Does testing help average Americans enjoy better health, better public amenities such as public parks, public health care, union jobs, a higher minimum wage, security in retirement, a guaranteed living wage, and so on?
Pretty obviously making poor people miserable doesn't further any of those goals.
People like R111, obviously a troll stirring up on a liberal-minded site, have only this to say in favor of such drug testing:
"I've been fucked all my life by people more powerful than I am. If I can't get back at them at least I can get satisfaction by fucking over somebody weaker."
The incredibly rich people who control Florida, Michigan, and now Washington, have had drug testing and the elimination of welfare in general in sight for many years. It is all over their publications. It was a demand that the Democratic Party has accepted in part -- see Clinton and welfare reform.
The larger goal is to eliminate all government services in all areas. Failing that, to make any service so painful to use and so difficult to obtain and maintain -- see public education and public employment in general, that the services are no longer worthwhile.
Then all public services can be run as for-profit activities. That's the dirty little secret, by the way, behind Bill Gates' attempts to create charter schools. People will have to pay corporations to educate their children, and the children will get exactly the education the corporations find expedient.
This agenda the rich are using is pretty obvious: starve government, make it so poor that it can't work and then ridicule what it still tries to do as inadequate. See, Bobby Jindal.
The rich control Florida and they want to destroy Florida's ability to provide for any of citizens -- the weakest target is the poorest group, so they get the first blast.
You have to think of it in this way: Who are our friends in this situation? Anyone who posts here, any working person is a lost paycheck, a severe illness, an exhaustion of unemployment benefits -- a few steps away from being among the poorest of the poor.
No one who comes here can ever become one of the super rich. They are not our friends. Our allies, current and potential, are among the very poorest, not among the very richest.
If you still doubt this, if you think the poorest are not on our natural allies. Do a thought experiment.
Imagine a piece of legislation that would clearly, without doubt, help the poorest people the most. Further, suppose the tax bill for it gets sent straight to the richest people through progressive tax policy. Middle American does not have to pay for it. Think a guaranteed living wage.
Can you imagine any such legislation that would hurt middle America? Impossible, right?
Think of it the other way around. Can you draft any law that would be cruel to the poorest, help the rich and at the same time help the middle class? Also impossible.
What the rich get out of such legislation is drug-testing contracts for their friends (This surely doesn't surprise anyone? This IS politics.)
But they also get a red-meat policy proposal -- they can throw it out there knowing that it isn't going anywhere but also knowing that it will put people who should be allies -- like most posters on datalounge, at each other's throats.
Welfare funds are such a small part of the budget I always assume these sorts of gestures are posturing and grandstanding. It will not have any significant effect on government spending. \
Just like we have security theater for political reasons at our airports, we have morality theater in public assistance.
Yes, that's a lot of it. The issue of drug testing as a necessary part of budget cutting is absolute bullshit.
There are a lot of mixed feelings among liberals about how government should treat those who cannot manage either at the moment, or in general, on their own.
The rich and the conservatives play off those mixed feelings by getting liberals concerned with side issues -- the expense of welfare or the immorality issue of doing drugs and having the taxpayer pay for it.
The lowest economic group includes people with physical and mental problems, drug and alcohol problems, people with criminal records, people whose jobs skills have disappeared, those who are too old to find re-entry after losing a job, the marginally employed -- essentially anyone who finds a spot to be productive -- i.e. help someone else make a profit from his labor, only on an occasional basis at best.
Of course to say the conservatives don't give a shit about that group is being kind to conservatives by implying that they have a casual disregard.
That is not it. It is worse than that. The rich require such a group and require that it get hit on over and over. That hitting does not have anything to do with trivial savings achieved by cutting off welfare drug addicts.
The poorest group acts as an example to those just above them -- those who have minimum wage jobs, no unions, no benefits, and no job security, who are told:
"Behave yourself. Don't organize, don't fight back, do as you're told, or you will be permanently marginalized also. Look at those below you. We can always drive you lower."
The poorest group who have no real wages keep wages depressed at the very lowest level of people who find themselves in the worst jobs -- at WalMart and McDonald's. It keeps the Krocs and the Waltons hauling in their billions.
The cost savings to the billionaires of eliminating welfare cheats is trivial -- the point is to keep the very lowest and weakest disorganized and scared.
The conservatives and the rich use the "Let's you and him fight" tactic all the time. They throw out this crap about illegal immigrants stealing jobs, and public workers stealing money through union jobs and pensions. People who get welfare money are drug addicts and many others.
That kind of red-meat assertions are designed to keep liberals fighting with each other.
The liberals have no choice except to buy into it. For one thing, they have to have billionaires on their side also.
But just in terms of turning out the vote, liberals have to attract this constituency. A typical potential Democratic voter might be a man who lives in Scarsdale who is anti-nuclear energy because he is afraid Indian Point might blow. That person the Democratic Party needs to cater to.
The Democratic Party has no need to look to the marginalized for support -- who else would the marginalized look to? Where else are the unions going to go?
The Scarsdale voter is going to be alienated if he hears the Democrats say that it will stand for welfare rights and retirement at 55 with socialize health care. He doesn't want to hear that.
That's why liberalism is a failure. It doesn't stand for any thing except winning the next election on the platform: "We are awful, but they would be worse!"
Check out the link, this is all profit for Scott himself, and has nothing to do with saving the state money. This guy is crooked, if only people had listened to Alex Sink during the campaign.
[quote]Good old America, where we hold everything anyone has ever done against them forever\
Yes, because people who CHOOSE to use hard drugs and commit violent crimes always turn into super-awesome people who deserve just as many rights in society as those of us who HAVEN''T deliberately hurt others!\
So well put. A gracious, thoughtful and logical response.
Here is the issue. When the economy gets bad, things happen in society that we would rather avoid: crime, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, divorce, and child abuse.
It is beyond doubt that those problems increase when people get poorer. (Meaning most of us, not the very rich -- they don't ever get poorer).
No scientist has ever done a study that shows cause and effect as to why drug use is higher among the very poor.
There is some doubt that it even is higher -- a lot of it depends on how you define the issue and phrase the questions.
It could be that a person with a taste for drugs slides down into poverty because he can't do what it is that he is supposed to be doing to work.
It could be that he would have been able to manage better if his work and income had not fallen away -- he might have found other things to do with his time. He might have entered drug treatment and continued to work.
Those answers are not in. We don't know.
What do we know? We know these two things:
1. Life is much worse for most people when the economy crashes, whether they use drugs or not.
2. Drug use among the poor does not cause an economy to collapse -- that happens when the very rich who run the economy screw up.
Because those things are true beyond any doubt, the obligation rests with those who run the economy -- the rich and the right-wing -- to justify making poor people more miserable than they already are when they use drugs.
The Florida governor has not made that case. He is not alone, other proponents have failed when they tried, see the governor of Michigan.
Because they have tried and failed, and our courts have said that they have tried and failed, it is reasonable to assume that the case for cracking down on poor people using drugs is horse shit.
Remember the concept of being an elected leader in public office in this country. Once you are in office, you are not longer a political operative. You take an oath to follow the laws and represent all the people who are your constituents.
You become a public official. It is your responsibility to attend to the well-being of rich donors and drug-addled welfare recipients alike.
It is not permissible, it is not moral, and as our courts have pointed out, it is not legal to say, "I was elected to screw the poor and help the rich."
It follows then that the proper response for those of us who want the best for this society is to demand that government shift its money and attention from making poor people miserable when they use drugs to fixing the economy.
See how that works?
Both 124 (angry, fingerpointing right) and Roland (preachy, excuse-making left) are off base here.\
Most drug users do not commit violent crime. \
Crime has not been going up in a bad economy. This phenomenon has been widely covered in the New York Times and in social science journals. Many theories abound as to why, but lately crime is being decoupled from economic issues. Divorce is down too, along with alcohol abuse (booze manufacturers are worried about dropping sales).\
So both of you should just look at the facts and not the memes surrounding the facts.
Crime is going down?
That is a subtle, side-stepping of the issue, a half-truth, that in any case is irrelevant.
What you omit to mention is that these articles are about violent crimes, emphasis "violent" crimes, in certain locations and that these have been going down for years -- ever since the mid 90s, and are continuing to do so, independent of any recession.
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether overall criminal activity, especially quality of life crimes, goes up or down during an economic collapse, now or in the past.
Scientists who study crime rate will all tell you that there are two types of statistics about crimes. There are figures relating to violent crimes, especially homicides, and to a lesser extend assaults with injuries and rapes. Then there are statistics relating to quality of life crimes.
Police cannot manipulate statistics dealing with violent crimes because those come to the attention of people outside the precinct -- hospital workers, district attorneys, the neighbors, etc.
The other kind of statistic relates to quality of life crimes, theft, property damage, prostitution, etc. There are no accurate statements about that kind of crime -- everything is manipulated.
Quality of life crimes are subject to police manipulation. Always. The police shape the figures they turn over depending on what message their administration wants to deliver.
Rapes become sexual assaults. Sexual assaults become domestic disputes. Felony taking by force becomes petite larceny, etc.
Every single time police get investigated for this type manipulation, they get caught -- the precinct captain's job is on the line if he does not deliver the figures downtown wants, at the moment.
If the government wants more money to buy armored vehicles for the police, "Survey says, 'Crime as going up!'"
If the current administration wants draconian law enforcement, perhaps making poor people go hungry if they smoke a joint, "Survey says, 'Crime is going up!'"
If it is re-election time, then every administration makes a 180, Now it wants to say it has helped win the war on crime, so, "Survey says, 'Crime is going down!'"
It is a sick joke to say that divorce is going down in a bad economy. Of course it is going down. Who can afford to start living separately when you can't afford food and rent when you share the expenses? People stay together because they can't afford the expense of splitting.
Alcohol abuse going down? Yes, people cut out what they can't afford when they have no paycheck. Duh!
Personally, I always liked George Orwell's position: If government can't (or won't, more like) deal with poverty, then it should provide the poor with cigarettes and liquor. Their lives are miserable enough as it is, They deserve their small pleasures.
If it were up to me, I would throw in a marijuana allotment and call it medicinal -- "Toke on this, buddy, and listen to some tunes. Maybe tomorrow something will open up."
In any case, your facts are flawed, but even if they weren't, what's your point? The recession has ruined lives, but that is good because there is less crime?
Do you really believe that a recession that has impoverished a great segment of this society to the benefit of the very few is good because there is less crime?
How does that speak to the overall quality of our lives -- we are completely broke, we have no hope, our children will have no jobs, but at least we won't get murdered as often when we go out to beg?
Where are you going with this thought?
How can people think it is wrong, all states should do this and I also think you should have to speak English too!
All of you people that are against this are complete idiots. Did you know that almost every employer requires drug testing prior to getting hired and they have random testing at their will. If I have to take a drug test to work and earn a salary to pay taxes that are used for welfare then by God there is no reason that they should not take a drug test. If it is unconstitutional for those on welfare then it is also unconstitutional for everyone and all drug testing should be abolished. You cannot have it both ways.
You drug test these people and they come up dirty so then they get the boot...now there's no food or money for them or the children. Parent can't find job because there isn't enough jobs for everyone to have one, remember the jobs have all gone overseas now where these large corporations can get away with using slave labor and the people here get to try and survive without jobs or turn to crime to be able to live while the big corporations make the big bucks at the expense and well being of the general public. Or parent is a alcoholic, drug addict or both and not capable of holding down a job so now there on the streets with children or children end up in foster care which really stands for very little care and many are worst than the home they were dragged out of and the kids very often suffer a lot of abuse along this dead end no win for them road. Next of course these kids are very unhappy so they act out and because of this dshs answer is always the same put them on Ritalin or a similar drug which are just different names for meth. Meth has the opposite effect on children and knocks them out, so then their to drug out to act out so problem solved except it's really only masking and suppressing the problem instead of dealing with it...so child grows up addicted to drugs and suffers from violent outbursts from years of suppressed emotions. Like their just little time bombs waiting to go off, so by trying to correct a problem the wrong way we have created a monster and a much more dangerous problem for all.
It's quite obvious none of you know any real drug users or people on welfare for life.
[quote]You drug test these people and they come up dirty so then they get the boot...now there's no food or money for them or the children.
That isn't how it works. Those people SELL their food stamps. Usually it's 10¢ on the dollar. Who are they selling them to?
So a welfare queen gets $300 in food stamps for her family. She sells it to her pusher for $30.00. The pusher gets a profit of $270.00
Then the welfare queen either steals to get food, hooks herself for money or goes to a church charity to get a basket full of handout food.
Theses people are in reality giving 90% of the government money to pushers.
No one is going to go hungry because those food stamps aren't used for food anyway. They're used for money to buy drugs.
The only food being bought with them is to shady food merchants, who cash them without selling food. It's easy to forge inventory. These are the ma and pa immigrant stores you see. They busted a huge number of them in Chicago for food stamp fraud.
By chopping off food stamps and welfare, you're only cutting off profit for the pushers.
Your rant is misplaced R129. The people against the Florida plan don't support most drug testing.
Looks like it worked on you though. Instead of speaking out against it, fighting against it, you show here that you were properly cowed and humiliated as designed and are taking that out on those with even less power and fewer options. Fighting to further spread the pain. Fighting to increase the drug war profiteering of the wealthy. How Republican of you.
[quote]By chopping off food stamps and welfare, you're only cutting off profit for the pushers.
Actual real world results disagree with you. I'll stay on the side of the evidence rather than your wishful thinking.