Florida requires drug testing for welfare starting July 1st.

[Bill Mattocks]

Aint gonna either.

Then we don't have a discussion at all. We have you ticking off a list of points which I claim are untrue and you refuse to discuss. Since we have no basis for a discussion, I do not care what you think on this issue; you're wrong. Sorry, I'd address the reasons why I think you're wrong, but "I ain't gonna either."

 

[oaktree]

Hi Bill I wanted to add a little on the cash assistance in Florida. It is much harder to recieve cash assistance then food assistance. Some cases you get both some cases one or the other. Also you may get medicaid or medicaide only and no food assistance or cash assistance its very case by case. There is also WIC which alot of middle class people use which is also an assistance program.

One of the worest things about Florida welfare is students who are attending college even those who are not on financial aid can not apply for food assistance.

In Florida financial aid can take months before it clears making students have to pay out of pocket for courses sometimes never getting reimbursed when financial aid comes thru.

So a student living on their own and paying their bills and hardly have any money for school can not recieve food assistance really sucks I think. But of course like I said earlier as long as another member files for themselves they can put the other person on their card as access to use the funds. Which is why the whole drug testing for welfare doesn't work.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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.

Good point. However, let's split some hairs. First, they're not being prosecuted for drug possession for having it in their system; this was the point I was making to Big Don, who said drug possession and drugs in your system were the same thing (a "distinction without a difference"). Second, they are indeed being required to comply with requirements to not have drugs in their systems, but they are in fact convicted criminals. Free citizens have some rights which convicted criminals do not.

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.

Yes indeed. I did actually say that. But again, the crime is not one of possession, per se. Possession is physical possession. In the USA, having drugs in your system is not possession and is not charged as a possession crime. Big Don implied that it is. He is mistaken.

 

[Blade96]

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 use government money if someone tried to make me get a drug test I wouldnt wanna do it either and tell em to bite me.

I dont use drugs, and i still wouldnt submit to a drug test.

 

[Big Don]

In the USA, having drugs in your system is not possession and is not charged as a possession crime. Big Don implied that it is. He is mistaken.

No, what I implied is that it is nearly impossible to become intoxicated with illegal drugs without ever having possession of them. But, you knew that.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bill, simply put if I say the system should do X, and you say it already does...how much time should I spend on that point?
I presented my -opinion-. An opinion that says aid should go to law abiding US Citizens, that some checks for legal compliance should be done, and that as a criteria for receiving the aid that those able to should contribute to the community supporting them.
You said the Florida system already pretty much does that.
We disagree on the drug test clause.
You say the stereotypes are wrong, I say I was in line last night between 2 of them at PriceRite. *shrug*

If it would make you feel better, I'll go back through though, quote a lot of your text and tack on "I agree" just so we're clear where I agree, and "Disagree" where I don't, and "acknowledged" so you know I did read it but haven't yet decided if I agree or disagree at the moment.

Or....you can accept that if I'm not -arguing and refuting- a point, I'm pretty much accepting it and moving on to different ones.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No, what I implied is that it is nearly impossible to become intoxicated with illegal drugs without ever having possession of them. But, you knew that.

I know what you said.

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

You replied: "A distinction without a difference."

Your statement is clear - drug use and drug possession are the same thing ("without a difference"). They are not the same thing, per Elder's statement and in contrast to your reply to it.

 

[Big Don]

I know what you said.

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

You replied: "A distinction without a difference."

Your statement is clear - drug use and drug possession are the same thing ("without a difference"). They are not the same thing, per Elder's statement and in contrast to your reply to it.

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.

 

[MJS]

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

I agree. The abuse of the system isn't limited to welfare. Hell, just within the past few months, I've read articles in which cops have put in for OT that they never worked. Hmm....

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?

Its interesting how the feds can make it a law, but the states dont have to follow it.

"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



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.

IMO, unless the person in question has no arms or legs, then theres no reason whatsoever, for someone on welfare, to get up and go out and work. If jobs are that hard to find, then do something to 'give back.' The goal, IMO, is to make them get back to work. But, as I said, until they find something, a bit of community service goes a long way. I'd rather see someone 'give back' 4hrs of their day, instead of sitting around doing nothing.

 

[Sensei Payne]

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

Well thank you for clearing that up. It just came came across that you were implying that all people who didn't submit must be guilty.

 

[Blade96]

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?

maybe his buddy was really the one in possession and the poor sod just took a sniff.

 

[punisher73]

Good point. However, let's split some hairs. First, they're not being prosecuted for drug possession for having it in their system; this was the point I was making to Big Don, who said drug possession and drugs in your system were the same thing (a "distinction without a difference"). Second, they are indeed being required to comply with requirements to not have drugs in their systems, but they are in fact convicted criminals. Free citizens have some rights which convicted criminals do not.



Yes indeed. I did actually say that. But again, the crime is not one of possession, per se. Possession is physical possession. In the USA, having drugs in your system is not possession and is not charged as a possession crime. Big Don implied that it is. He is mistaken.

Nope, I am in agreement with you, that is why I said "split hairs". Just giving a couple of examples, that could border up against that idea. Drugs in your system is not in and of itself a crime, unless it affects other conditions. Thinking about it, the only crime I can think of for the mere presence of a substance being a crime in and of itself is in Michigan, Minor in Possession of Alcohol, having a BAC of .002 or higher is a crime. They don't need to be caught with the alcohol, just having it in their body is proof that they "possessed" it.

I know there have been attempts to charge mothers with babies born with drugs in their system as a crime, but I don't think any of those cases passed muster to go forward.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Nope, I am in agreement with you, that is why I said "split hairs". Just giving a couple of examples, that could border up against that idea. Drugs in your system is not in and of itself a crime, unless it affects other conditions. Thinking about it, the only crime I can think of for the mere presence of a substance being a crime in and of itself is in Michigan, Minor in Possession of Alcohol, having a BAC of .002 or higher is a crime. They don't need to be caught with the alcohol, just having it in their body is proof that they "possessed" it.

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/

Public Act No. 63 was signed by Governor Jennifer Granholm on April 12, 2004, giving Michigan one of the toughest Minor in Possession (MIP) laws in the country. The MIP Michigan law was first revised in the year 1998 and Public Act No. 63 is the first major revision after that.
Being “in possession of alcohol” has had its definition amended to where blood alcohol content (BAC) is now included explicitly in the definition. Under the new MIP law now, “any bodily alcohol content” is prohibited.
Michigan law specifically provides that “A minor shall not purchase or attempt to purchase alcoholic liquor, consume or attempt to consume alcoholic liquor, possess or attempt to possess alcoholic liquor, or have any bodily alcohol content.” A violation of this act constitutes a misdemeanor.

I stand corrected!

I know there have been attempts to charge mothers with babies born with drugs in their system as a crime, but I don't think any of those cases passed muster to go forward.

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

 

[Cryozombie]

If a drug is in your bloodstream, aren't you in possession of it?

Or, if say, I have Heroin in my bloodstream is someone else actually the one in possession?

I am confused by the distinction.

 

[Cryozombie]

No wait, I think I got it.

If a cop sees me inhaling a Joint that Bob is holding up to my lips... Bob is in violation of the law, not me... yes?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If I had a joint in my hands, I'd be doing the inhaling, hoping that it would find it's way to a couple of herniated discs and mellow them out.
Theoretically.

 

[Big Don]

If a drug is in your bloodstream, aren't you in possession of it?

Or, if say, I have Heroin in my bloodstream is someone else actually the one in possession?

I am confused by the distinction.

It is MAGIC!

 

[Empty Hands]

If a drug is in your bloodstream, aren't you in possession of it?

Or, if say, I have Heroin in my bloodstream is someone else actually the one in possession?

I am confused by the distinction.

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?

 

[Big Don]

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

ILLEGAL

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?

Oh, I understand that that is the way it is. I'm just pointing out the abject stupidity of that. It took 5 pages or more to get you to admit they must have been guilty of possession to use illegal drugs...

 

[hongkongfooey]

All pigeon toed inbred Southern Red Necks?

LOL Hey! You got me with that one Bob!:wah: :lfao::boing2: