This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Florida to require drug testing for welfare recipients
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
xaratherus
First, the
source article
.
Florida's governor has signed into law a requirement that any intended recipient of welfare money from the state will be required to undergo a drug test. Should the person fail to pass, they can designate another adult (who must pass the drug test) as the recipient for the money on behalf of the first party's children.
A number of critics have declared this a huge invasion of privacy without cause. Others support the measure as a protection against those who are on welfare so that they can spend their own money on drugs.
What's your opinion? (I'll withhold mine for a bit - but I will provide it after awhile).
Post by
pezz
I would approve of it if we had sensible drug law where marijuana was completely legalized.
Even if you're very left wing socially, giving a heroin addict a fistfull of money and a kick out the door is fairly counterproductive. If we want a government that gives that kind of person money, it should be through a much more structured program than welfare.
Post by
Monday
I would approve of it if we had sensible drug law where marijuana was completely legalized.
Even if you're very left wing socially, giving a heroin addict a fistfull of money and a kick out the door is fairly counterproductive. If we want a government that gives that kind of person money, it should be through a much more structured program than welfare.
^
I agree with this.
Post by
ExDementia
1. Welfare is to keep your head above water while you find a job so you can support yourself and your family. If you give an addict money, what do you think he will spend it on? I wouldn't loan a crack head money because I know that he's not going to use that money to help himself get on his feet.
2. Wouldn't you expect a drug test when applying for a new job? That's how these things work, companies don't want to invest their money into addicts, and neither does the government.
3. Drug use is illegal anyway, I think drug tests should be expected under many circumstances, ESPECIALLY when dealing with the government. Invasion of privacy my ass... illegal things are illegal even if done in private.
4. People abuse the crap out of the welfare system already. I think there need to be much tighter restrictions on who can receive the money and for how long. It's to the point where people have more kids just so they can collect more welfare money than that kid costs to raise.
This reminds me quite a bit of Arizona's immigration law.
Don't do illegal things and you have nothing to worry about. Amazing how that works, eh?
Post by
UnholyDeciever
1. Welfare is to keep your head above water while you find a job so you can support yourself and your family. If you give an addict money, what do you think he will spend it on? I wouldn't loan a crack head money because I know that he's not going to use that money to help himself get on his feet.
2. Wouldn't you expect a drug test when applying for a new job? That's how these things work, companies don't want to invest their money into addicts, and neither does the government.
3. Drug use is illegal anyway, I think drug tests should be expected under many circumstances, ESPECIALLY when dealing with the government. Invasion of privacy my ass... illegal things are illegal even if done in private.
4. People abuse the crap out of the welfare system already. I think there need to be much tighter restrictions on who can receive the money and for how long. It's to the point where people have more kids just so they can collect more welfare money than that kid costs to raise.
This reminds me quite a bit of Arizona's immigration law.
Don't do illegal things and you have nothing to worry about. Amazing how that works, eh?
I agree with this.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
Since I'm getting ready to head home for the day, let me drop my two cents:
I agree with ExDementia, and wholly support the law. I also understand Pezz's concern, because I feel it's ridiculous that marijuana is criminalized - but (since I'm admittedly a selfish person), I would rather some pot-smokers be inconvenienced than have my tax dollars go to fund a drug-using welfare recipient.
Post by
Squishalot
Since I'm getting ready to head home for the day, let me drop my two cents:
I agree with ExDementia, and wholly support the law. I also understand Pezz's concern, because I feel it's ridiculous that marijuana is criminalized - but (since I'm admittedly a selfish person), I would rather some pot-smokers be inconvenienced than have my tax dollars go to fund a drug-using welfare recipient.
Sums up my view perfectly.
Post by
Monday
Since I'm getting ready to head home for the day, let me drop my two cents:
I agree with ExDementia, and wholly support the law. I also understand Pezz's concern, because I feel it's ridiculous that marijuana is criminalized - but (since I'm admittedly a selfish person), I would rather some pot-smokers be inconvenienced than have my tax dollars go to fund a drug-using welfare recipient.
Also agree with this.
Even though I don't pay taxes yet, I can see why people would be pissed if that happened.
Post by
pezz
Don't do illegal things and you have nothing to worry about. Amazing how that works, eh?
Around my part of the world people get up in arms if speed cameras are not clearly signposted in advance....
Oh I grew up in England. I am aware of speed camera angst.
The difference, I think, is that speed cameras are often just a sneaky revenue stream. Welfare and programs to help drug addicts never are.
In Florida, the goal is to save the state some expenses. With speed cameras, the goal is sometimes just to bring in a little extra cash by putting speed cameras in places where you know people won't see them in time.
Post by
839309
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
im sorry but i just saw this and had to make an acount just to say how $%^&ing stupid this idiot is. my mom has a drug problem but that dosnt mean she is less equal to anyone else! adiction is a desease and it dosnt mean she shudnt be able to provide for her family wen the econemy is complete %^&* like it is. thats descrimination and its wrong. *anger and rage*
So how does welfare help your mom, exactly? A check and a kick out the office door once a month is hardly a long term solution to anything.
Post by
Squishalot
it dosnt mean she shudnt be able to provide for her family wen the econemy is complete %^&* like it is
Did you create a new account just for this post, or something? Why else would you be here on Off Topic?
In any event, what the point of all this is that instead of getting cash, you get food and clothes if you fail the tests. Supporting your family is one thing. Supporting a drug addiction is another.
Post by
buzz3070
Did you create a new account just for this post, or something? Why else would you be here on Off Topic?
im sorry but i just saw this and had to make an acount just to say how $%^&ing stupid this idiot is. .
It seems he did, though he lost a lot of credibility with his poorly spelled paragraph. Though i must ask is your mother trying to make her life better? If she is then yes she should receive welfare. If not then yes the money should go to someone else that will not spend the money on drugs and instead use it to help your family by buying food paying bills etc.
All in all i agree with the bill.
Post by
ExDementia
<Insert unintelligible nonsense here>
El oh el. I won't even justify that with a real response.
Post by
Squishalot
It seems he did
I wasn't clear enough, I suppose. I'm wondering which *actual* user he is, and whether he created a new account just for it, not wanting to associate his old account with these comments.
Post by
buzz3070
It seems he did
I wasn't clear enough, I suppose. I'm wondering which *actual* user he is, and whether he created a new account just for it, not wanting to associate his old account with these comments.
Yeah, that crossed my mind but i have not seen anyone do that lately.
Post by
Pwntiff
Yes, it should be mandatory. If they're abusing substances, they should get a wake up call, help to get them clean, or not be a strain on society. People talk about needing budget cuts, but if governments tighten the rules (or actually enforce them in some cases) concerning welfare benefits, there would be less of a need to cut spending in more vital areas like education.
@zomgwow: I almost would have taken you seriously if you typed properly, used less vernacular, and omitted the part that's been edited out.
That's a good way to either cut your fledgling forumite life short or have your actual Wowhead account actioned for a troll/obscene post.
Creating a new account just to post (to use your rhetoric) bull^&*! like that only hides you from the regular posters, not the mods and admins.
Post by
ExDementia
I would be interested to hear an
actual
counterpoint to this topic since there seems to be plenty out there elsewhere.
Post by
Pwntiff
I would be interested to hear an
actual
counterpoint to this topic since there seems to be plenty out there elsewhere.
Standard "invasion of privacy" and "but if I doesn't git muh state money, how the hell am I supposed to feed my five kids cuz I sure as hell can't keep a job with my crack addiction" rhetorics, probably.
To quote the article:
"Governor Scott's new drug testing law is not only an affront to families in need and detrimental to our nation's ongoing economic recovery, it is downright unconstitutional," said Rep. Alcee Hastings. "If Governor Scott wants to drug test recipients of TANF benefits, where does he draw the line? Are families receiving Medicaid, state emergency relief, or educational grants and loans next?"
Rep. Corrine Brown said the tests "represent an extreme and illegal invasion of personal privacy."
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.