Florida requires drug testing for welfare starting July 1st.

[Bob Hubbard]

One other thing. What -I- mean and what others mean are often quite different. You know this.

 

[WC_lun]

Ya and you would be dead wrong wouldn't you. The whole point is to weed out abusers of the system before they participate, giving assistance first would be a FAIL.
no I hope they hold to their guns, and I hope the nation follows, I am tired of failures, I am tired of failures getting babied, accepted, and supported. Its time they step up. I am not interested in hand holding people, they need to take responsibility for themselves. Its time we toughen up as a nation.

Your statement tells me you have no experience with the people you want to demonize. Tell me, is a young person trying to learn the skills neccesary for him to climb out of the destitution he was born in a "failure?" Is the person facing a catastrophic illness who has lost everyhting to something like cancer a "failure" because they take money to survive? Or maybe the mother who has left an abusive marriage and is struggling to work and keep food on the table for her children. Is she a "failure?"

Most people on assistance would rather be doing just about anything else. Applying for assistance is humiliating and then we must hear the kind of nonsense you posted above. Are there the lazy and the welfare queens. Yeah, there are and most people on assistance would love to get them off of assistance because they don't deserve it and give us all a bad reputation, not to mention being a waste of money.

Now how about the people who actually waste the most money? Why aren't you up and at arms about them? Hospitals that double charge for procedures, or charge outragious amounts or common items such as tylenol, plastic combs, unused disposable razors. What about the doctors that pad thier bills, charging exhorbitant amounts or even charging for things they didn't perform? The transportation companies that claim more miles that were driven. There are many more examples, but these are the ones I have witnessed personally. Why are these people not held to the standard of the law?

If you can figure out a fair and equitable way to seperate the truly needy from those that just want to abuse the system, I would be all for it. It seems you really aren't interested in that though. It seems to be more of a case of a serious lack of compassion for others and as long as you have yours, screw everyone else. I'd love if you'd disuade me of that notion and actually address some of the things I have posted about.

 

[Sensei Payne]

Your statement tells me you have no experience with the people you want to demonize. Tell me, is a young person trying to learn the skills neccesary for him to climb out of the destitution he was born in a "failure?" Is the person facing a catastrophic illness who has lost everyhting to something like cancer a "failure" because they take money to survive? Or maybe the mother who has left an abusive marriage and is struggling to work and keep food on the table for her children. Is she a "failure?"

Those people..the cancer survivor and the mother...aren't doing drugs...at least shouldn't be.(Well maybe the cancer survivor is smoking medicinal pot but thats another argument)Those groups wouldn't be the type of person that would "take advantage" of the system, in fact, they are why the system is there in the first place...so submitting to a drug test shouldn't be a problem for them.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I can see husbands now all over Florida saying to their wives, "You had better shape up or you'll be peein' in a cup so fast your head will spin!"

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, I said what I mean, exactly how I mean it.
I'm afraid you are reading further into it that I have.

So please, tell me what I mean, because I'm afraid I don't see it.

OK...

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?

Implication: People who get Welfare have it 'better' than you, and they don't work for it.
Fact: People on Welfare life in extreme poverty in general, and Welfare-to-Work laws require that they engage in training and/or work to remain on Welfare; and there is a lifetime cap.

Baring that, make sure the money spent is going to law abiding American's.

Implication: Welfare recipients are not law-abiding.

Put in criteria that rather than allow them to sit home doing nothing, some time is spend helping the community.

Implication: Welfare recipients are sitting home doing nothing.
Fact: Welfare-to-Work law requires that they receive training and/or work in order to receive benefits. They're not 'sitting at home' now, unless they have some medical reason why they can't work.

If they can comply with the law, give em their cheese.
Otherwise, hang em.

Implication: Welfare recipients are worthless, like small rodents, sub-human.

When I look at your words, I see a pattern of assumptions that you refuse to change even when confronted with facts. You keep harping on 'work' for Welfare recipients, and ignore the fact that they are required to work by law if they are able.

However, you seem obsessed (as do others in this thread) with not just the idea of Welfare recipients doing work, but doing visible and menial work, work that can be seen by others, such as picking up trash by the side of the highway. Is manual labor demeaning? No, of course not. It is not 'lowering' oneself, and I've never implied it is. But demanding that they do road crew work in lieu of the work they do now, work which supposedly would help them obtain permanent work and get off Welfare, well, that tells a different tale. The story it tells is one of vindictiveness, anger, and a belief that people on Welfare are bad people.

As I have asked you before, and you have chosen not to answer - do you want to see people on Welfare get jobs that get them off Welfare, or do you want to punish them for being on Welfare? As much as picking up trash by roadsides is as dignified as any other kind of manual labor, I very much doubt there is career to be had doing it. In other words, what skills will they learn picking up trash by the roadside that is going to lead to them getting a permanent job and getting off Welfare? If they currently have to find employment, do work for the government, or obtain training NOW, what advantage is there in taking them away from that and making them pick up trash by the highway? I can't imagine you want them to get off Welfare as much as you want to punish them for being on it. If there is another reason, you have yet to address it, since you have ignored the information I've provided.

I've pointed out the Welfare-to-Work and lifetime caps on benefits to you personally twice now; you haven't addressed it even once, insisting that people are Welfare are just 'sitting around'. If that's not a preconceived notion about people on Welfare, I don't know what else to call it. Intentional ignorance? Do you really not want to know that the reforms you demand are actually in place as federal law? Is it that important to you that this not be true?

Anyway, I have to back away from this now. You've said the same thing several times now, and then denied it meant what you clearly stated. Either that's intentional to push my buttons, or you really don't see it in yourself. Either way, it becomes counter-productive for me to keep trying to point it out.

 

[MJS]

Welfare is limited already. Most states implement lifetimes caps. Most states have Welfare-to-Work requirements that require people who are capable of doing work (medical and physical conditions permitting) to find work, and help provide training while they do so, but cut off assistance if they do not.

It seems most in this thread say they want those things - they already exist.

But again, your words show that you believe what most seem to believe; that Welfare recipients are dishonest, lazy, and don't want to work.

You talk about what is 'too much to ask for' but I don't disagree with the basic concept. I reply that a) they have that now (Welfare to work) and b) you don't get to decide what is too much to ask for (neither do I). When we're talking about a legal 'entitlement', which Welfare is, then the courts get to decide what is too much to ask. That is my point.

As to my solution, it's much more complex than I can lay out here. First, as I pointed out, most waste, fraud, and abuse of Welfare and social programs occurs at a much higher level than the recipient. I'd want to address that. Second, I'd consider what my motivation was as well as my intended end-result. If the goal is to get people off Welfare and back to work, do drug tests do that? If not, then other concepts should be explored.

However, it seems to me that the actual goal for many in this thread is not about getting Welfare recipients back to work. It's about resentment over the thought that they get free money and services without having to work for it, on our taxpayer dime, and we don't like it, so anything we can legally do to prevent them from getting it, humiliating them for taking it, or ending their access to it, is what we want. This I believe from simply reading the comments about what people are saying in this thread about Welfare recipients. They "sit on their asses" and they "smoke Newports" and the "watch Maury." Do they? Is that an accurate picture? And even if it was, I'm not hearing "I want them to get jobs," I am hearing "I want them to pick up trash by the roadside in exchange for the money we gvie them." Sounds to me like it's about humiliation and punishment.

Sadly Bill, its because that seems to be the norm....people milking the system. Unless you're an honest person, who wouldn't milk the system, so they can sit on their ***, get free money, and instead of using it for food and things for their kids, spend it on booze and drugs. Happens all the time. Again, I'm all for helping, but it needs to end at some point. You said most states have the welfare to work programs. Ok, what about those states that dont?

Is every welfare person lazy? Nope, but its a case of a few bad apples ruining the bunch. But, good, bad or otherwise, everyone on welfare should be required to give something back, ie: community service and have limits on when the free ride ends.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

One other thing. What -I- mean and what others mean are often quite different. You know this.

Oh, to be sure. But the tone is clear. The folks in this thread who are in favor of the drug-testing all seem to follow the same pattern, the question is just one of degree. In general, the pro-drug-testing folks believe:

1. Drug testing does not violate Welfare recipient's Fourth Amendment rights.
2. Even if it does, so what, because they have to get drug tested by their private employers, so why not Welfare recipients?
3. Welfare recipients should have to work for their money (despite the fact that there is a federal Welfare-to-Work law in place and has been adopted by the state of Florida).
4. Welfare recipients are on Welfare for life (despite the fact that there is a federal lifetime cap on Welfare and that has also been adopted by Florida).
5. Welfare recipients do not work.
6. Welfare recipients sit around and smoke Newports (a clear racist statement, by the way, but only one person made it; the rest have studiously ignored it but refused to repudiate it).
7. Welfare recipients watch TV all day.
8. Welfare recipients ought to be made to do menial work in public view (this while denying that this is an attempt to humiliate and/or punish them for being on Welfare).
9. The reason Welfare recipients ought to be made to do menial public labor is as a form of 'community service', a term generally used to describe people doing similar labor as a restitution, parole term, or probation sentence for criminal behavior. Thus making it clear that Welfare recipients are viewed by these people in the same light as criminals.

You (generic 'you') claim to want them to have to work - that's law now. You ignore that.
You claim to not want them on Welfare forever - that's law now. You ignore that.
You claim they sit around and watch TV all day - that's not true, based on the above statements. You ignore that.
You claim that drug-testing is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, despite the fact that the only other state to try it (Michigan) had their law struck down by a federal circuit court for precisely that reason, showing a break with reality.
You claim there is "no problem" with drug testing laws for Welfare recipients, despite the statement above where a federal court found that yes, there is a problem with it. That's some powerful reality-denial there, guys.

The reasons you give why it ought to be the case are convoluted, but seem to revolve around the idea of people who get services or money from the government for which they did not pay ought to be required to be law-abiding in all other respects. But you don't seem interested in OTHER people who get free services and money from the government, including those who don't pay net taxes but drive on public roads or send their children to public schools, or those who get disability retirements that they did not pay for in the public, private, and military sectors. And you only seem interested in drugs, and not, say, their tax-return status or whether or not they break other laws - just the drug laws. All of which leads me to believe the reasons you give are not the reasons you have.

I was born at night, but not last night.

 

[Twin Fist]

And you think Welfare recipients are not law abiding why?

anyone not willing to be drug tested is pretty much admitting they are using drugs which is STILL against the law Bill.

so yes

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Sadly Bill, its because that seems to be the norm....people milking the system.

The funny thing to me, is that it *is* becoming the norm, but not amongst the Welfare recipients. There are Welfare crooks and cheats, for sure. But the biggest, fastest-growing sector of fraud is one that should be near and dear to your heart - disability pension retirements for police and fire employees.

As one medically retired cop told me, he could get more from a 20-year disability pension than from a 40 year retirement, so why not? And sure, he was a beat cop for 20 years, he's got all kinds of medical issues, from bad knees to a hip replacement. Doesn't stop him from jet skiing or partying on his boat, though. Still, 100% disabled according to his pension.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2011/01/police_fire_disability_pension.html

Unless you're an honest person, who wouldn't milk the system, so they can sit on their ***, get free money, and instead of using it for food and things for their kids, spend it on booze and drugs. Happens all the time. Again, I'm all for helping, but it needs to end at some point. You said most states have the welfare to work programs. Ok, what about those states that dont?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

The federal government made it law, but can not force the states to enact enabling legislation. However, they provide money to the states that do, so there is a carrot:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opa/fact_sheets/tanf_factsheet.html

It does exactly what the people here on this thread claims does not happen - aid recipients have to work, there is a lifetime cap on aid. That's been the law since Clinton was in office, but to hear the people in this thread say it, it doesn't exist and Welfare recipients sit around all day and do nothing and remain on Welfare for life. Now which is it?

Highlights of TANF
Work Requirements:

• With few exceptions, recipients must work as soon as they are job-ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance.
• To count toward a State’s work participation rate, single parents must participate in work activities for an average of 30 hours per week, or an average of 20 hours per week if they have a child under age six. Two-parent families must participate in work activities for an average of 35 hours a week or, if they receive Federal child care assistance, 55 hours a week.
• Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of a family’s benefits.
• ...

Is every welfare person lazy? Nope, but its a case of a few bad apples ruining the bunch. But, good, bad or otherwise, everyone on welfare should be required to give something back, ie: community service and have limits on when the free ride ends.

"Give something back." Is the goal to get them off Welfare or to make sure they 'Give something back'? I don't see how making them do 'community service' gets them off Welfare, especially when they are required to do work now.

As to limits, they exist now. People seem bound and determined to pretend they don't.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/welfare.shtml

Establishing a Five Year Lifetime Limit on Assistance: To address long-term welfare dependency, TANF placed a five year lifetime limit on assistance, but allowed states to exempt up to 20 percent of such cases for hardship reasons. States are allowed to reduce this lifetime limit below 5 years, and almost half of the states have done so.

Again, the federal government cannot make the states comply, but offer financial incentives to those that do. Five years is the lifetime max, but some states make the limit less than five years. Florida has a lifetime cap on Welfare benefits per TANF.

So these things people claim to want - they exist. And of all people, it happened on President Clinton's watch. Is that the reason we're all pretending they do not exist, the reason that we pretend that people on Welfare are on it for life, and that they are not required to work?

I keep posting this information, no one addresses it even to deny it, but then they post again that people on Welfare don't work and are on it for life. It just is not true. Not my opinion; fact and federal law.

 

[elder999]

anyone not willing to be drug tested is pretty much admitting they are using drugs which is STILL against the law Bill.

so yes

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

If one of my employees tests positive for an illicit drug, he or she doesn't even lose their job, they get sent to rehab.......

 

[Bill Mattocks]

anyone not willing to be drug tested is pretty much admitting they are using drugs which is STILL against the law Bill.

so yes

I would not be willing to be tested and I do not use any drugs but caffeine and my Metformin for diabetes. Want to modify that statement, or would you prefer to call me a liar? Because either you are wrong or I am lying.

 

[oaktree]

Bill.is correct the state of Florida requires those who
Apply for welfare to be activity looking for work and have
A case worker handling their case. Florida welfare
And one stop centers work together with this.

If you have ever been to welfare in Miami you will
See the majority of people are not lazy drug addicts
But immigrants working for 7.25 an hour and just have
Enough money to pay the roof over their heads, eldery
Who can not work, people just laid off from work and young people
Who's company gives then 15-20 hours a week and trying to
Get something to hold them thru.



In Florida you do not have to file yourself for welfare.
Another member of household can file and in cases file on your behalf.
So even if you were a hard core drug addict you don't even have
To get tested to receive benefits you can use the other persons benefits since
From same household hell if you give that person authorization that person
Can use the welfare card and get the money.

 

[Sensei Payne]

I would not be willing to be tested and I do not use any drugs but caffeine and my Metformin for diabetes. Want to modify that statement, or would you prefer to call me a liar? Because either you are wrong or I am lying.

I also would like to add...just because you refuse a drug test doesn't mean you are automatically a drug user...simply means you don't want to be drug tested. Just because I don't want to go through the naked body scanner at the airport doesn't make me a terrorist.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Here is something interesting...

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...cott-says-welfare-recipients-are-more-likely/

Department of cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face:

Florida has tried to initiate drug testing before. The Legislature in 1998 approved a drug-testing pilot project for people receiving temporary cash assistance. But the results were underwhelming. Of the 8,797 applicants screened for drugs, only 335 (3.8 percent) showed evidence of having a controlled substance in their systems and failed the test, the Orlando Sentinel reported. The pilot project cost the state $2.7 million (or about $90 a test).

The Legislature ultimately abandoned the program.

Read that again. 2.7 million taxpayer dollars to catch 335 drug users. Wow, that's effective use of tax money, eh?

From the They're-Getting-Rich-on-Welfare Department:

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/docs/reports/caseload_circuit.xls

About 233,000 Floridians applied for cash assistance in 2009-10, according to statistics kept by the Department of Children and Families. During May 2011, 93,170 Floridians received cash assistance, a drop of 8.3 percent from a year ago. Payments can range from $100 to $200 a month per person.

Yep, they're smoking a lot of Newports and watching TV all day on that $100 to $200 dollars a month, eh?

The outcome:

Our ruling

Let's remember what Scott said. He told CNN's T.J. Holmes that, "Studies show that people that are on welfare are higher users of drugs than people not on welfare."

Scott's office provided evidence that supports that claim. Sort of.

And opponents provided evidence that refutes Scott's claim. Sort of.

What's obvious is that it's difficult to make broad generalizations about a whole group of people. And it's even more difficult to definitively measure drug use. Scott's statement is at least partially accurate because there are studies showing a higher prevalence of drug use among some welfare recipients. But he also is neglecting research that suggests that drug use among welfare and non-welfare recipients is consistent. We rate this claim Half True.

In the meantime, we've got people claiming that folks are getting rich off Welfare. Not true. They claim that people on Welfare don't have to work. Not true. They claim that people on Welfare are on it for life. Not true. They claim it's about saving taxpayer dollars; seems to me that at the cost of finding each drug user, that's not just not true, it's a patently stupid waste of taxpayer dollars.

On the other hand, I assert that this is basically a witch-hunt. We don't like people on Welfare, and we're not particularly interested in what drug-testing might actually do; we're way more interested in trying to find a reason, any reason, to deny it to them. So far, I have found no evidence that points away from that conclusion.

 

[Twin Fist]

I also would like to add...just because you refuse a drug test doesn't mean you are automatically a drug user...simply means you don't want to be drug tested. Just because I don't want to go through the naked body scanner at the airport doesn't make me a terrorist.

which is why i said "pretty much" and not "is"

 

[Big Don]

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

A distinction without a difference.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bill, I don't specify dispute or agreement in most of my arguments. I didn't realize that I had to go through and make a line by line accounting. Aint gonna either.

My experience with the welfare system and populace comes from NY, not Florida.
http://www.nywfia.org/

When you say "must actively look for work" I hope it's a stricter system than the one my county unemployment office used to use where every week you had to turn in a list of places you applied to that they never verified.

People do cheat the system. People do sit home and collect money and do nada.
Most don't. But enough do that it's a problem, a waste and a theft.

It's nice that there are system in place that might fix that if used properly.
But I don't know anyone on welfare who gets up in the morning and goes to work.
I do know someone who was told if she left her husband, moved out and claimed he beat her, they would put her up in a house, feed her, give her full medical AND a free college education. All she wanted was an extra $20 in foodstamps to stretch their food budget. NY Bill. It's why I want out.

In NY we have 3rd generation welfare families, never known another income source. They drive big Escalades and wear furs when shopping for their lotto and beers. I've been there enough to see the stereotype enough that it appears the norm, in NY.
Maybe in some states it still works, but in NY, its a broken system that's well abused.

As to the type of jobs I suggested they do...well, I'm sorry but there's not a lot of openings for CEO, and President and Chief of Operations available as compared to seasonal maint and upkeep positions.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A distinction without a difference.

You can't be arrested, convicted, or put in prison for having illegal drugs in your bloodstream in the USA. That's kind of a difference. I believe Kansas tried to make it legal to prosecute for drug possession based on drug tests a number of years ago - I am not sure but I do not think it became law. In the UAE, though, you can be prosecuted (and executed) for having illegal drugs in your bloodstream. Maybe that's what you were thinking of.

You could be arrested for being intoxicated while in public or driving, but that's not the same as being arrested for possession of illegal drugs.

 

[Big Don]

You can't be arrested, convicted, or put in prison for having illegal drugs in your bloodstream in the USA. That's kind of a difference. I believe Kansas tried to make it legal to prosecute for drug possession based on drug tests a number of years ago - I am not sure but I do not think it became law. In the UAE, though, you can be prosecuted (and executed) for having illegal drugs in your bloodstream. Maybe that's what you were thinking of.

You could be arrested for being intoxicated while in public or driving, but that's not the same as being arrested for possession of illegal drugs.

No. Bill, actually, I was thinking:
How did the ILLEGAL, and let us remember, that IS the key word here, drugs get into the bloodstream if the person never had possession of them?

Did someone break in to their home, hold them down and shoot them up? Why have stories of these forcible intoxications never been mentioned?

 

[punisher73]

You can't be arrested, convicted, or put in prison for having illegal drugs in your bloodstream in the USA. That's kind of a difference. I believe Kansas tried to make it legal to prosecute for drug possession based on drug tests a number of years ago - I am not sure but I do not think it became law. In the UAE, though, you can be prosecuted (and executed) for having illegal drugs in your bloodstream. Maybe that's what you were thinking of.

You could be arrested for being intoxicated while in public or driving, but that's not the same as being arrested for possession of illegal drugs.

Not to split hairs, but you can in some cases be prosected for having drugs in your system, but no possession of them. If you are on probation or parole, and you fail then it is a violation and you can be sent back to prison/jail, which is a seperate issue than fresh criminal charges I know, but just using it as an example the state setting conditions for people.

Also, in Michigan for example, if I smell marijuana on you and have PC while you are driving, I can arrest you and get a search warrant for your blood and have you tested for drugs in your system and prosecute you that way for operating under the influence of drugs.