Florida requires drug testing for welfare starting July 1st.

[hongkongfooey]

As I pointed out, the state of Florida requires work to be done by those on Welfare.

Is there something in that which you are failing to see?



You did not. But you described them as a class. As have others in this thread. Are we to pretend we do not know what you mean?



Shall we make certain that they all registered for the draft when they turned 18, and that they all have their taxes paid up to date and filed on time? I mean, that's criminal activity too.

But as I have said, "there should be no problem" is meaningless, because there *is* a problem, and it's not me who is saying that; it's the federal circuit court (in the case of the similar law in Michigan). You can say "there is no problem with that" all you like, your words do not have the force of law, and the courts do.



Yeah, we're back to describing Welfare recipients in derogatory terms again. You didn't *say* they were all criminals, no. But you continue to imply it, and frankly, I know you are aware of it. Just like the person a few pages back to said they were all smoking Newports didn't *say* they were all black, he just implied it. It's a sad little game, Bob. Have the courage to say what you mean and not play weasel word games. I know what you mean and you know what you mean. Now find your stones and man up.

Seriously dude are you clairvoyant? Please show the class where I made any reference to race when I made the comment about Newports and Maury Povich. You implied that I made reference to only black people with with my comment. You even called it a racist comment in a prior post. Prove it! Do you assume that only black people smoke Newport cigarettes? Are you projecting your own prejudice into the argument? Also, aren't you the same guy that tried to equate the treatment of Jews during the Holocaust to welfare recipients preforming community service? Seriously, either prove that my intent was towards black people or stop whining and retract the statement.

 

[MJS]

http://www.courant.com/community/mi...n-child-neglect-0611-20110610,0,3550214.story

In the months leading up to the April day when state authorities removed Andy and Jessie Meeks' five starving and filthy children from their squalid Berlin Street house, the family's situation was growing more and more desperate, officials said.
A premature baby was born to Jessie Meeks in November, creating further stress in a home with four other children, aged 2 to 6, including one child born prematurely who has developmental delays.
The baby tested positive for opiates, but Jessie Meeks said that was because she'd had two poppy seed bagels shortly before giving birth, according to warrants for her and her husband's arrest

A classic example of what I'm talking about. Yes, I know, I know, this is just one example, but my point is simply to show that maybe the drug testing isnt a bad idea. Hmm....lets see....IMO, depression, PTSD, and a kidney issue, isn't enough to make you unable to work. IMO, if you're in that bad shape, why have more kids? Why bring more kids, who didn't ask to be born, into such poor conditions? Yeah, I know, I know, who am I to tell someone how many kids they can have. Of course, thats true, but if welfare is being paid, well, where does that money come from? Interesting that there was money for weed, cigarettes and some herbal junk though. Nice to see where that $654 is going. Yeah, lets buy stuff for ourselves, but let our kids starve.

Again, 1 example and there are many others who I'm sure are decent people, who can't help their situation, and have no choice to be on welfare. So yeah, one bad apple shouldnt spoil the bunch, but in many cases, it does.

 

[Cryozombie]

I am not sure why you and Don are harping on this point. We've confirmed in this thread that a positive drug test is not grounds for a possession charge except in one very specific circumstance in one place. You obviously must have been in possession of a drug at one time to have it in your blood, and yet the law does not convict on these grounds. We know this. Why continue with it?

Excuse me, but I'm not harping on any point. This is the FIRST time I brought it up. Im asking for someone to explain the distinction to me. If Its in my body, am I not in possession of it, I don't understand how that distinction is made, and would like clarification of it.

Of course, by your logic you guys need to shut up and quit harping on Drug testing in Florida it, since We've confirmed in this thread that a positive drug test is grounds for denying Welfare in Florida by law.

Seriously dude. Either we are allowed to discuss it and state that we disagree with the position DESPITE whatever the fact and or rulings are, or we aren't... but that doesn't just apply to the portion of it YOU disagree with.

 

[elder999]

Excuse me, but I'm not harping on any point. This is the FIRST time I brought it up. Im asking for someone to explain the distinction to me. If Its in my body, am I not in possession of it, I don't understand how that distinction is made, and would like clarification of it.

It's a legal distinction, not a logical one. There are different levels of possession, based on quantity and intent-have so much, and the assumption is made that you have intent to sell-clearly, if it's already in your body, there can be no intent to sell, so it really doesn't count as "possession," legally.

 

[WC_lun]

http://www.courant.com/community/mi...n-child-neglect-0611-20110610,0,3550214.story




A classic example of what I'm talking about. Yes, I know, I know, this is just one example, but my point is simply to show that maybe the drug testing isnt a bad idea. Hmm....lets see....IMO, depression, PTSD, and a kidney issue, isn't enough to make you unable to work. IMO, if you're in that bad shape, why have more kids? Why bring more kids, who didn't ask to be born, into such poor conditions? Yeah, I know, I know, who am I to tell someone how many kids they can have. Of course, its true, but if welfare is being paid, well, where does that money come from? Interesting that there was money for weed, cigarettes and some herbal junk though. Nice to see where that $654 is going. Yeah, lets buy stuff for ourselves, but let our kids starve.

Again, 1 example and there are many others who I'm sure are decent people, who can't help their situation, and have no choice to be on welfare. So yeah, one bad apple shouldnt spoil the bunch, but in many cases, it does.

I do agree that with three kids and the issues this couple has, perhaps bringing anotherchild into the situation isn't the best idea. Having a kidney issue could be serious enough to cause a person not to work, depending upon how advanced it is and how a person's body reacts to treatment.

We can all come up with examples of poeple behaving badly. I think the biggest questions right now with this program is;
Is it constitutional?
Will it put up barriers for people who legitimately would qualify for the assistance?
Is the cost of implementing the program worth the net results?

In my opinion, Florida has not answered amny of these questions adequately. Until they do, I would be very hesitant to suport such a program.

 

[MJS]

I do agree that with three kids and the issues this couple has, perhaps bringing anotherchild into the situation isn't the best idea. Having a kidney issue could be serious enough to cause a person not to work, depending upon how advanced it is and how a person's body reacts to treatment.

Yes, you are correct. I'm not a doctor, dont know these people personally (Thank God) but on face value, well, I think you can see how bad this looks. My point was....if these people are truely in as bad shape as the paper makes them out to be, it still isnt an excuse to be spending the money that they're getting on anything but things for everyone in the family, not just themselves.

We can all come up with examples of poeple behaving badly. I think the biggest questions right now with this program is;
1) Is it constitutional?
2) Will it put up barriers for people who legitimately would qualify for the assistance?
3) Is the cost of implementing the program worth the net results?

In my opinion, Florida has not answered amny of these questions adequately. Until they do, I would be very hesitant to suport such a program.

1) I dont see why it wouldnt be.

2) IMO, if you are not guilty of violating any of the rules set in place by the state of Fl, then no, you shouldnt have anything to worry about. No more, IMO, than someone who hasnt been drinking, going thru a DUI checkpoint.

3) IMO yes.

 

[Cryozombie]

It's a legal distinction, not a logical one. There are different levels of possession, based on quantity and intent-have so much, and the assumption is made that you have intent to sell-clearly, if it's already in your body, there can be no intent to sell, so it really doesn't count as "possession," legally.

So... bear with me here... If I take the drugs and shove them in my... backside... are they not already in my body, and therefore I am not in possession?

The distinction seems convoluted and full of holes.

 

[Big Don]

It's a legal distinction, not a logical one.

Clearly

 

[Cryozombie]

Will it put up barriers for people who legitimately would qualify for the assistance?

In my opinion, Florida has not answered amny of these questions adequately. Until they do, I would be very hesitant to suport such a program.

Well, that depends. If by law, a drug user does not qualify for assistance, then the only way I can see it would put up barriers is if someone got a false negative on their drug test.

If, however, it is decided that drug users are exactly who these programs are for, since they cant qualify for jobs since they cant pass a drug test for employment... then yes, it puts up a barrier for someone who would otherwise qualify.

 

[Empty Hands]

It took 5 pages or more to get you to admit they must have been guilty of possession to use illegal drugs...

First time I've commented on this particular issue.

 

[Big Don]

First time I've commented on this particular issue.

You're right. I'm sorry.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Seriously dude are you clairvoyant? Please show the class where I made any reference to race when I made the comment about Newports and Maury Povich. You implied that I made reference to only black people with with my comment. You even called it a racist comment in a prior post. Prove it! Do you assume that only black people smoke Newport cigarettes? Are you projecting your own prejudice into the argument? Also, aren't you the same guy that tried to equate the treatment of Jews during the Holocaust to welfare recipients preforming community service? Seriously, either prove that my intent was towards black people or stop whining and retract the statement.

You may as well have said that Welfare recipients sit at home and eat watermelon. I retract nothing. I called it a racist comment and it is. It is a common stereotype that black people smoke menthol cigarettes, particularly Newports. The fact that you used that brand instead of simply stating that you think Welfare recipients sit at home and smoke cigarettes, but felt the need to name a brand, says all that needs to be said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport_(cigarette)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I can't USE your car, being hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from it, therefore, I cannot posses it. I have caffeine in my system because, half an hour ago, I had a soda, did I posses the soda? Or was there some kind of magical trick involved? In other words, if the, lets be honest, shall we, criminal, didn't have drugs in his/her possession, how did he/she use them? The laws need to be reconciled with the reality that it just is not possible to use drugs without possessing them.

I will try to explain one more time, because I am at work on a Saturday night, I was forced to miss a karate seminar that I very much wanted to attend, and I am waiting for others to finish their work so that I can do mine, so I am bored.

You used a particular term, "A distinction without a difference." That has a specific meaning. You seem not to be grasping that meaning, no offense intended.

When a person makes a distinction between two things, and you reply "A distinction without a difference," you are making a comment on the distinction the other person made. You don't get to say what the distinction is, the person to whom you are replying did already. What you did was to make a comparison between two statements that Elder never made. That would be incorrect use of the language.

Repeating again:

Elder said: "Actually, in most jurisdictions, "drug use" is not illegal; drug possession is."

You replied: "A distinction without a difference."

The 'distinction' that Elder made was that 'drug use' is not illegal in most jurisdictions, but 'drug possession is'. The operative term is 'illegal'. One thing is illegal, the other is not, according to Elder.

If you wish to argue that Elder's distinction is one with no difference, then you must show that the 'difference' he gave is not true. Either drug use is illegal AND drug possession is illegal, or neither drug use NOR drug possession is illegal. If either case was true, then your statement would be true; it would in fact be a distinction without a difference.

However, it is not true; Elder is correct in his distinction. You have not argued that he is wrong, but rather something entirely different; that drug use required previous drug possession. Perhaps true, perhaps not true; but not what Elder said, and therefore, your comment that his 'distinction' had no 'difference' was incorrect.

 

[elder999]

So... bear with me here... If I take the drugs and shove them in my... backside... are they not already in my body, and therefore I am not in possession?

The distinction seems convoluted and full of holes.

Well, if they were in plastic and you shoved them there to hide them, then you're in possession. If they were in the form of a suppository and you took them that way, then you're no longer in possession.....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, if they were in plastic and you shoved them there to hide them, then you're in possession. If they were in the form of a suppository and you took them that way, then you're no longer in possession.....

And just to argue the sidebar discussion that this has become...

Is it possible to test positive for illegal substances and to not have had possession of illegal drugs? Yes. I can think of several examples.

First; one can test positive falsely. That is, a very small percentage of all drug tests for illicit substances come back positive but the test results are wrong.

Second, one can test positive for an illicit substance and not have been in possession of an illegal drug by having had it administered by a doctor. An example would be cocaine used by some eye doctors for a topical anesthetic in surgery. Controlled substances are 'controlled' rather than being illegal per se.

Third, one can go to a country where such use is legal, consume the drug, and return to be tested. They did possess the drug, but it wasn't illegal at the time and place they took it.

Fourth, approved religious use, such as the ceremonial use of peyote in certain Native American religious rites. The drug would be illegal for them to possess outside of the context of the ceremony, and only certain individuals may possess it, but members of the tribe and religion may ingest it.

Fifth, by eating poppy seeds. Yes, poppy seed buns are made with the same poppy seeds, papavar somniferum, that produces opium. The sterile seeds are perfectly legal, but they can cause a positive test for opiates.

I am sure there are other reasons a person might test positive for illicit drugs in their blood and not have possessed illegal drugs.

But that was never your statement to Big Don; I understood your point clearly.

 

[elder999]

Fourth, approved religious use, such as the ceremonial use of peyote in certain Native American religious rites. The drug would be illegal for them to possess outside of the context of the ceremony, and only certain individuals may possess it, but members of the tribe and religion may ingest it..

That's not quite how it works, but it's the reason they don't normally test for mescaline in the workplace, even at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

 

[Cryozombie]

And just to argue the sidebar discussion that this has become...

Is it possible to test positive for illegal substances and to not have had possession of illegal drugs? Yes. I can think of several examples.

And I did mention that in my Above post...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And I did mention that in my Above post...

Yes, you did. But you were not the person insisting that in order to have illegal drugs in one's bloodstream, one must, ipso facto, have possessed illegal drugs prior to that.

I was concluding my micro-rant by pointing out that not only was the response technically incorrect (distinction without a difference), but even if we visit that sidebar insistence, that's incorrect factually as well.

And yes, I've been up all night working, and I'm a bit loopy at the moment. Sorry.

 

[Sensei Payne]

If it was a native american type deal...wouldn't the Reservation card be a "Get out of Jail Free" card on the welfare in the blood stream? If they did happen to use it for Religous purposes?

 

[punisher73]

I had to go look it up. You're right, I'm wrong:

http://www.garmokiste.com/legal-services/criminal-defense/michigan-minor-in-possession-mip-law/



I stand corrected!



I think those have been more of an 'endangerment' charge in cases where they have actually prosecuted.

No biggie, many officers don't know that law unless they deal alot with juveniles. Being assigned as an SRO, I have written a misd. citation under that statute for a kid who showed up and smelled like alcohol. That is how I knew the bac level etc.