Florida requires drug testing for welfare starting July 1st.

[Scott T]

I don't know if there is an instant test for marijuana, I do know there is one for opiates...

There is. Every new construction job I go on I'm pre-screened. I know the results before I leave the lab door.

 

[Big Don]

How 'bout this... I'll give two ****s about some crackheads right to free money when my right to Carry a weapon to protect myself from said crackhead is respected.

The Second is just as valid as the Fourth.

The Second amendment, is supposed to allow us to ensure the rest aren't taken from us.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Now, Bill will cite Amendment IV.

I'm all done with that in this thread. You guys use it for TP when it makes you think you're getting those no-good [insert hated group here] bastiches.

The key word here is 'unreasonable'.
I personally find it entirely reasonable that someone applying for tax payer assistance be a law abiding citizen.

So you should have no problem with TSA searches. 45% of all US citizens pay no taxes, so effectively almost half the country is on 'tax payer assistance'. I repeat, if you're not paying taxes, you receive benefits for which you do not pay.

But the IVth is irrelevant having been removed from consideration by the Patriot Act, which authorized secret courts who authorize secret warrants to allow any search for any reason without any notice and no you can't see it or tell anyone about it.

It hasn't gone quite that far yet. It's more about wiretaps and searches of private databases without a warrant, not searches of people's bodies and the contents thereof.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

what the **** is so hard to understand about "we dont want you to BREAK THE DAMNED LAW with the tax dollars we are giving you"????

A lot, actually.

As I said before, if you're part of the 45% of this nation that does not pay net taxes, you are also getting government services for free. That means that by your values, almost half the country has no right to object to mandatory drug testing anytime they drive on the public highways, visit a national park, or do anything else that is paid for with tax dollars, which they did not contribute to.

As well, Welfare and other social services are an entitlement. I am not saying I'm happy about that, but they are in fact an entitlement. That means that if they qualify for the assistance, you cannot deny it to them. The fact that they break or don't break OTHER laws is completely irrelevant to them getting this assistance; the law says they are entitled to it. If you have a problem with that (and I certainly do), then the solution is to change the law, not to ignore it when it is convenient to you.

which idiot moron judge doesnt like that simple idea?

Any moron judge who loves the Constitution more than they love feel good laws that make it seem like we're doing something about Welfare abuse.

Personally, I'm all for those kinds of judges. You are too, when they come down on the side of the Constitution instead of feel-good laws regarding oh, say, the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution is not your pal when you feel all happy about what it says. It's your friend when you dislike what it means; or you're no friend of the Constitution.

If you ever took a moment to look at the anti-gun websites and discussion forums, you'd find ranters going on about 'moron judges' who don't understand simple concepts like gun registration; if you don't violate the law, why do you have a problem with it? The whole idea of the 2nd Amendment is lost on them. You're just different sides of the same Constitution-hating coin, IMHO.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The Second amendment, is supposed to allow us to ensure the rest aren't taken from us.

Where does it say that?

 

[Empty Hands]

The Second is just as valid as the Fourth.

So your attitude is if one equally valid amendment is being crapped on, then you don't care if all of the amendments are being crapped on?

As I said before, the answer to injustice is to correct the injustice, not to perpetrate other injustices so that everything is equally unjust.

 

[WC_lun]

Something has been bugging me about this thread. Something that I haven't seen mentioned. Let us assume that a person does not use drugs and is in desperate need of assistance from the government for whatever valid reason. They are told they must pay for a drug test to qualify for the assistance. If they are already in desperate straights, how do they pay for the test? The cheapest test I have ever seen was $60 and the one I took for my last job was a bit over $200. For a person really struggling, either of those numbers might as well be in the thousands. So for the people who need it the most, this puts assistance out of reach.

I can totally support tax dollars not being spent on drugs or other illegal activity. I equally feel as if this law has some major problems with both enforcement and implementation.

 

[Twin Fist]

Mr Mattocks, you are a very learned man

your views however, are typical "theory" that ignores reality. The reality is, this isnt something people have a "right" to. It is very reasonable to place limitations on it. And Drug use is a very reasonable exclusion

ONLY in theory land could someone say that drug tests are ok for people looking for work, but NOT for people getting tax dollars....

if you are ok with that, good on you.

I prefere reality myself.

 

[Big Don]

So your attitude is if one equally valid amendment is being crapped on, then you don't care if all of the amendments are being crapped on?

As I said before, the answer to injustice is to correct the injustice, not to perpetrate other injustices so that everything is equally unjust.

So, isn't your outrage over amendments being "crapped on" just as selective as his?

 

[Sensei Payne]

Mr Mattocks, you are a very learned man

your views however, are typical "theory" that ignores reality. The reality is, this isnt something people have a "right" to. It is very reasonable to place limitations on it. And Drug use is a very reasonable exclusion

ONLY in theory land could someone say that drug tests are ok for people looking for work, but NOT for people getting tax dollars....

if you are ok with that, good on you.

I prefere reality myself.

Completely agree...whats good for the goose is good for the gander

if they wanted to make drugs legal then this argument would be moot. Even at that point at least the welfare money would be going back into the economy faster...since legal drugs would be taxed like alcohol and cigarettes.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Something has been bugging me about this thread. Something that I haven't seen mentioned. Let us assume that a person does not use drugs and is in desperate need of assistance from the government for whatever valid reason. They are told they must pay for a drug test to qualify for the assistance. If they are already in desperate straights, how do they pay for the test? The cheapest test I have ever seen was $60 and the one I took for my last job was a bit over $200. For a person really struggling, either of those numbers might as well be in the thousands. So for the people who need it the most, this puts assistance out of reach.

I can totally support tax dollars not being spent on drugs or other illegal activity. I equally feel as if this law has some major problems with both enforcement and implementation.

Let's just examine the entire issue for validity and for motive. I think it is instructive.

Why do 'we' want to ensure that those who receive public assistance are not using illegal drugs? The reason most often given is that we don't want them spending 'our' money on things that we don't approve of, things that do not contribute to their getting off of public assistance, or which personally anger us.

If that is indeed the motive, then we must ask if those receiving public assistance are more or less likely to be using illegal drugs than the general population. Are they? I could not find any data to support that. The ACLU claims that the percentages are similar. Even people who support the welfare drug-checking laws seem to be claiming that it doesn't matter - even one person using drugs who is also receiving public assistance is one too many, and justifies testing everyone. I would again ask why we do not test the 45% of the nation that pays no taxes, but gets benefits paid for by taxpayers, of which they are not one. What of those who are on Social Security or Medicare or military retirement or police or fireman medical disability pensions? They get money from the public teat also. Shall we not test all of them?

If not, then what it is about Welfare that generates such a strong desire, and not for those who receive other forms of federal or state money? It seems there must be another reason.

But I notice that most of those in this thread who are in favor of drug testing for Welfare recipients also make other statements, and I believe that goes to motive. They note that people on Welfare sit around and smoke Newports and watch Maury on TV. This would tend to make me think that they are under the assumption that Welfare recipients are all lazy abusers of the system who have no interest in getting jobs. They seem to be in favor of Welfare reforms such as Welfare-to-Work (Workfare) but not aware that this already exists. They seem to be in favor of lifetime caps on Welfare use, but seem to be unaware that those caps already exist. They seem to be in favor of putting Welfare recipients to work - one suggestion was that they clean up highways. This makes an assumption that Welfare recipients are all able-bodied, healthy, and young enough to go stand on the side of the road and pick up trash, which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the sometimes debilitating physical illnesses that some on Welfare suffer from. In other words, they have a firm picture in mind of the average Welfare recipient, and that mental image is a negative one. It would appear to me that their motive, then, is one of punishment; regardless of what they say, their published opinions betray them.

What is the motive for testing people on Welfare for drug use? We don't like them and we want them not to get Welfare if we can possibly find a reason to deny it to them. That's the bottom line. All other considerations are secondary.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Mr Mattocks, you are a very learned man

Not as learned as I'd like to be, but thank you.

your views however, are typical "theory" that ignores reality. The reality is, this isnt something people have a "right" to. It is very reasonable to place limitations on it. And Drug use is a very reasonable exclusion

The fact is, Welfare was indeed a legal 'right' until the Welfare Reform Act (Clinton, 1996), and after that, it remained an 'entitlement'. This is the fact we have to live with. Yes, for all intents and purposes, including in courtrooms, it is a 'right'. I'm not happy about that, but it is.

ONLY in theory land could someone say that drug tests are ok for people looking for work, but NOT for people getting tax dollars....

The government does not require private employers to perform drug tests on employees. That is up to the employers, and the employees are free to work elsewhere. Employment, unlike Welfare, is not a right.

if you are ok with that, good on you.

I never said I was OK with that. I said I am OK with the Constitution. It's not theoretical, it's the real framework for our system of governance. If one person can say it's OK to ignore it when it involves Welfare users, then it's just as valid to ignore it when it involves gun owners. You can't just pick and choose what you like about it and ignore the rest. That's why I end up supporting the right of the KKK to march in the streets of downtown Skokie, Illinois, even though I hate the KKK. I support the right of the Phelps group to shout at military funerals even though I hate Phelps and all he stands for. I support the right, not the people involved. You could, I suppose, say that I'm "OK with the KKK," but that would be incorrect. I support the Constitution, even when it says things I do not like. That's not theory; that's the real world.

I prefere reality myself.

I do too. The courts rule and we live with it. That's reality. Not what we think ought to happen to suit our own prejudices.

 

[WC_lun]

Bill, if what you say is true, then the testing itself is just a smokescreen to put up a wall in front of perspective recepients of welfare. That is pretty sad.

I'm on disability, so I know a little bit about the government assistance thing. It is a pain in the *** and if I had any other choice I wouldn't be taking it. There are programs I qualify for that I don't take. So knowing this, there are a few of points I'd like to express.

First, people who are on government assistance aren't neccessarily lazy or don't want to work. In fact, most aren't that way, but I've seen many ignorant post that assume all people on assistance are lazy good-for-nothings. In most cases this is not the case and it is insulting and disrespectful when such post are made. Yeah, I'll get over it, but your still an idiot if you believe everyone on assistance are lazy and just don't want to work.

People who use assistance to buy drugs or pursue other illegal activities (or even booze) piss me off as much as they do you. Maybe even more. People notice these lawbreakers and then generalize that everyone on assistance is like this. It also waste money, which I'm not a big fan of. There are laws in place to stop stuff like this, but they aren't enforced very well. When people in prison are recieving checks from the state, there is a glaring lack of enforcement.

Putting up road blocks for people who genuinly need assistance is not the answer. In fact, it is counter-productive and will cost more in the long run. It is much smarter to give a person a helping hand when they first need it than later when that helping hand will cost much more and the person getting help has run out of hope. I know what it is like to have a diet of ramen noodles and walk miles to a job because I cannot afford bus fare. Paying for a drug test is a huge impedement for people in similiar straits. I truly hope that the law isn't designed that way on purpose.

Seems there has been a ton of money spent on welfare for corporations. It'll never happen, but I like the idea of the CEOs of those corporations getting tested or losing thier money as well.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, if what you say is true, then the testing itself is just a smokescreen to put up a wall in front of perspective recepients of welfare. That is pretty sad.

That is my belief, yes. I am in favor of complete overhaul of our entitlements system, so I'm not a fan of Welfare; but it is an entitlement and I believe it generates both resentment and a set of incorrect assumptions about the people who receive it.

As I said, if the goal is to prevent people receiving taxpayer-funded benefits that they did not pay for unless they obey drug laws, then there should be no problem testing the 45% of the population that works but does not earn enough to pay taxes. I do not see a massive push for that. This tells me something.

I also note the comments that surround any discussion about Welfare benefits, including such things as 'sitting around smoking Newports' and 'watching Maury on TV'. That would tend to make me think that other motivations are at work.

I realize that the Welfare system is rife with abuse and fraud. I am sickened by it, and want to see it reformed, overhauled, and only those who truly need assistance getting it. I do not want to waste my tax dollars on the undeserving or on criminals. But I look at Welfare fraud and I see billions wasted on systemic fraud that includes doctors, hospitals, medical service and drug providers, and others administratively involved in the system; it's in the news every day, but it's the tip of the iceberg. There is far more money being wasted here than on end-recipients who are not willing to work or who simply want to sit around all day and take drugs. Focusing attention only on that small segment and ignoring the rest tells me that some other motivation is at work here.

I also have to place my belief in the Constitution above all. Stop criminals, yes. But not by any means necessary. It has to be done within the framework of our Constitution, or what's that piece of paper for, anyway? If it can be disregarded to punish someone we don't like today, someday I may be the person others don't like.

 

[Empty Hands]

So, isn't your outrage over amendments being "crapped on" just as selective as his?

You may not have noticed, but this thread isn't about guns or the 2nd amendment. Shall I list everything that outrages me at the beginning of every thread so I don't get accused of "selectivity"?

I am in favor of the 2nd amendment. I own multiple guns, and enjoy using them. I haven't said anything about the 2nd amendment in this thread. Go find your gotchas elsewhere.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If the biggest argument is "they can't afford it" then modify the time line. Make it 'within 90 days you must take and pass a drug test. Upon passing you will be reimbursed the cost of the test". You have now eliminated the "desperate straights" argument as they should have a few bucks to spare after getting free cash for -3- months.

As to reality.... My personal position is taxation is theft, the USC is in tatters, and the gov will work around law whenever it feels like it. I have to work for a living, don't get free money because my back hurts or I get dizzy, don't get a special parking place because I'm old, and have to buy my own food and pay my own rent. Why should someone else get it better by doing less work?

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Nothing with Social Security happens in real time. Pass, here's your money several weeks later. Your reimbursement may or may not come with your initial check.

Fail, I'm no attorney but don't police have to catch you in the act of drug use in order to make an arrest? have some grudging respect if there were some mention of help offered to those who fail the test, but that's not in the article. No, it's just another brick wall for those who are struggling the hardest to climb over.

Now if FL or any other state mandates drug testing for CEOs whose corporations get welfare, then I'd be all about it. They also would, of course, have to pay for their own tests as well. Fair is fair.

this is complete nonsense.
I am so tired of hearing this ridiculous notion that corporations are getting money from the government with no strings attached. Its naive, its simply not true in almost all cases, hell even the bailouts of Big Auto had stipulations and they were about as close to free money from the government as anything I have ever seen. BTW almost all corporate entitites conduct drug tests as a condition of employment, and I do not know of any that have any amount of driving required as part of the job that does not require drug tests, In the last 20+ years I have submitted to at least 40 drug tests between work and sports. I despise the fact that people are against this, it makes me think we have to many cowards in this country that are trying to rail against common sense, and the law. Welfare is not a right, nothing is free. If you want it then you will submit to the will of those giving it to you or find other options. Its not like they are demanding anything that is incriminatory, or over the top like DNA, or fingerprints, or any number of other things that could be used against a person in any way. I know that people are going to be against it, but I still despise the reasoning.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

A lot, actually.

As I said before, if you're part of the 45% of this nation that does not pay net taxes, you are also getting government services for free. That means that by your values, almost half the country has no right to object to mandatory drug testing anytime they drive on the public highways, visit a national park, or do anything else that is paid for with tax dollars, which they did not contribute to.

As well, Welfare and other social services are an entitlement. I am not saying I'm happy about that, but they are in fact an entitlement. That means that if they qualify for the assistance, you cannot deny it to them. The fact that they break or don't break OTHER laws is completely irrelevant to them getting this assistance; the law says they are entitled to it. If you have a problem with that (and I certainly do), then the solution is to change the law, not to ignore it when it is convenient to you.



Any moron judge who loves the Constitution more than they love feel good laws that make it seem like we're doing something about Welfare abuse.

Personally, I'm all for those kinds of judges. You are too, when they come down on the side of the Constitution instead of feel-good laws regarding oh, say, the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution is not your pal when you feel all happy about what it says. It's your friend when you dislike what it means; or you're no friend of the Constitution.

If you ever took a moment to look at the anti-gun websites and discussion forums, you'd find ranters going on about 'moron judges' who don't understand simple concepts like gun registration; if you don't violate the law, why do you have a problem with it? The whole idea of the 2nd Amendment is lost on them. You're just different sides of the same Constitution-hating coin, IMHO.

you sure love throwing around that 45% number, and it really is a smoke job once again.. It does not really mean what you are implying it does. Lets remove out of that percentage the number of people who are being supported by someone else who does in fact pay taxes, lets take out of that number those that are earning a living and who pay sales tax, gax tax, or any other form of tax besides income tax, I might be missing something more here... like community service..but we will not include that, lets include the people who do not earn any money, and who do not pay any taxes of any kind, and who are given money by the government out of other peoples tax dollars, those are the only ones who are truely not paying any form of tax... so your 45% number... no good not by a long shot.

umm in regards to the entitlement argument and the law... hello they are changing the law. they are including stipulations to qualifying for it... so adding the passed drug test by passing a law is doing exactly what you are saying.... changing the law.. so that argument is done...

oh ya your gun argument, also invalid and using smoke screen logic to muddy the waters..
the big difference is entitlements are not included in the constitution, there is however a very specific part that says.... "shall not be infringed" thats pretty damn clear. So ya none of your arguments you are using really hold any weight when looked at with how do you like to put it... oh ya logically.... thanks

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

So your attitude is if one equally valid amendment is being crapped on, then you don't care if all of the amendments are being crapped on?

As I said before, the answer to injustice is to correct the injustice, not to perpetrate other injustices so that everything is equally unjust.

no his point was that you guys arguing vehemently against this and citing the 4th erroneously sure dont seem to want to protect the other amendments as dearly as the 4th. You got your comment completely backwards, he feels they are all entitled to the same protection and passionate defense as each other and would appreciate people out there that are hypocritical about it to feel the same..

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Something has been bugging me about this thread. Something that I haven't seen mentioned. Let us assume that a person does not use drugs and is in desperate need of assistance from the government for whatever valid reason. They are told they must pay for a drug test to qualify for the assistance. If they are already in desperate straights, how do they pay for the test? The cheapest test I have ever seen was $60 and the one I took for my last job was a bit over $200. For a person really struggling, either of those numbers might as well be in the thousands. So for the people who need it the most, this puts assistance out of reach.

I can totally support tax dollars not being spent on drugs or other illegal activity. I equally feel as if this law has some major problems with both enforcement and implementation.

there was mention they had worked out a deal that would make the tests no more expensive then $42. I feel that number is so low that virtually anyone could come up with the payment for it. I find it a non factor