Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums

Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums (http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Florida's debated welfare drug-screen measure kicks in (http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8188)

Spiritwalker 07-03-2011 11:41 AM

Florida's debated welfare drug-screen measure kicks in
 
I do understand the concern of the ACLU.. but come on.. doesn't it make sense!


http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/02/flo...html?hpt=hp_t2

Quote:

CNN) -- A controversial law requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening has gone into effect in Florida.

Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott signed the legislation in June.

"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."

Under the law, which went into effect on Friday, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify.

Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.

Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state's congressional delegation issued a joint statement attacking the legislation, one calling it "downright unconstitutional."

And the ACLU has filed suit against the state for requiring all state workers to take a drug test and is considering suing the state for drug-testing welfare applicants.

Controversy over the measure was heightened by Scott's past association with a company he co-founded that operates walk-in urgent care clinics in Florida and counts drug screening among the services it provides.

In April, Scott, who had transferred his ownership interest in Solantic Corp. to a trust in his wife's name, said the company would not contract for state business, according to local media reports. He subsequently sold his majority stake in the company, local media reported.

On May 18, the Florida Ethics Commission ruled that two conflict-of-interest complaints against Scott were legally insufficient to warrant investigation, and adopted an opinion that no "prohibited conflict of interest" existed.

Florida is not the first state to pass such legislation. Michigan passed a similar law that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found unconstitutional in 2003 since it violated the U.S. Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable search.

The court said the law would set a dangerous precedent by allowing the government to conduct drug searches for the safety of the public without prior suspicion.

Buzzard 07-03-2011 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiritwalker (Post 171006)
I do understand the concern of the ACLU.. but come on.. doesn't it make sense!


http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/02/flo...html?hpt=hp_t2

No it doesn't. It's an unlawful search. No probable cause. What other rights are you willing to give up?

Do you know how much a drug screen costs? I do. It's $228.00. I have a receipt in front of me showing it. Do you think poor folks can afford that?

I find it to be a total conflict of interest on the Gov's part too. How nice that he and wife share stock in a company that provides drug screens. Putting it under his wife's name doesn't take away the conflict. Sure they say they won't apply for the contract now, but they will eventually imo.

I thought folks wanted a less intrusive government, maybe that's only the one's who care about the CONUS though.

EDIT: How about we deny any welfare or any benefits to fat people, because we know that they chose the gluttonous lifestyle with their unhealthy eating habits? Do you really want to live in a nanny state? Attacking and charging the poor when they don't have the funds to feed themselves is repulsive and unAmerican.

rockdawg21 07-03-2011 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzard (Post 171024)
No it doesn't. It's an unlawful search. No probable cause. What other rights are you willing to give up?

Do you know how much a drug screen costs? I do. It's $228.00. I have a receipt in front of me showing it. Do you think poor folks can afford that?

I find it to be a total conflict of interest on the Gov's part too. How nice that he and wife share stock in a company that provides drug screens. Putting it under his wife's name doesn't take away the conflict. Sure they say they won't apply for the contract now, but they will eventually imo.

I thought folks wanted a less intrusive government, maybe that's only the one's who care about the CONUS though.

EDIT: How about we deny any welfare or any benefits to fat people, because we know that they chose the gluttonous lifestyle with their unhealthy eating habits? Do you really want to live in a nanny state? Attacking and charging the poor when they don't have the funds to feed themselves is repulsive and unAmerican.

It is true that there are more overweight/obese people than there are drug users. Their lifestyle undoubtedly costs us far more than drug abuse.

Spiritwalker 07-03-2011 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdawg21 (Post 171030)
It is true that there are more overweight/obese people than there are drug users. Their lifestyle undoubtedly costs us far more than drug abuse.


:laugh:

Spiritwalker 07-03-2011 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzard (Post 171024)
No it doesn't. It's an unlawful search. No probable cause. What other rights are you willing to give up?

If you want assistance from the state in living... you shouldn't be breaking the state's laws.


Quote:

Do you know how much a drug screen costs? I do. It's $228.00. I have a receipt in front of me showing it. Do you think poor folks can afford that?
I do know that there are people that mooch off the state.... I do know that when I was in the hospital...I heard one guy telling another guy to "forget that job.. get you some food stamps.. and sell those".... and the article shows that they will recoup the cost of the test..


Quote:

I find it to be a total conflict of interest on the Gov's part too. How nice that he and wife share stock in a company that provides drug screens. Putting it under his wife's name doesn't take away the conflict. Sure they say they won't apply for the contract now, but they will eventually imo.
I don't care about who makes money on the tests... I do care that money that I would rather see go to more cops.. better teachers... and such... do NOT go to provide for an addition

Quote:

I thought folks wanted a less intrusive government, maybe that's only the one's who care about the CONUS though.
the contiguous United States??? maybe your fairly well off.. or still living at home... but I don't want my tax dollars being snorted up a nose and such...

Quote:

EDIT: How about we deny any welfare or any benefits to fat people, because we know that they chose the gluttonous lifestyle with their unhealthy eating habits? Do you really want to live in a nanny state? Attacking and charging the poor when they don't have the funds to feed themselves is repulsive and unAmerican.

Would you rather provide for those that don't want to provide fro themselves because their are people out there that will provide for them.. and then allow them to pervert the system that takes from you.. and gives to them...?

I would rather see the new(ish) debit cards that took the place of food stamps... can only be used at local government "grocery stores". And in those stores.. no.. there are no Doritos .. and such.. it would suck for the kids... not to get a treat.. but I am working my arse off.. to provide for my family.. I shouldn't have to subsidize people I don't even know while they are puffing on the pipe.... I haven't had a great steak in a while... but my taxes go to provide for the family with the Escalade in their front yard.. while their house is falling down... and yes.. I am using a specific example.. 4 miles from my home.. that's exactly what's going on.. and they still have their cable TV... but the cops still cruise by.. can't wait...

When I was a kid.. I lived on government cheese and such.. but my mom always had a bottle of cheap vodka and smokes in the house.. my mom used to sell her food stamps to friends and family for .50 on the dollar. I am not kidding... that's how it was... I don't want to fund that at all.

VCURamFan 07-04-2011 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzard (Post 171024)
No it doesn't. It's an unlawful search. No probable cause. What other rights are you willing to give up?

Buzz, that's no different than the drug test you take when you're applying for many jobs. Those tests aren't forced. You are given 2 choices: take a drug test or apply for a different job. Same thing here - take the test or look elsewhere for money. And no, I don't feel sorry for the poor people who are "forced" to take that second option because that means that they're criminals & it's they're own fault.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzard (Post 171024)
Do you know how much a drug screen costs? I do. It's $228.00. I have a receipt in front of me showing it. Do you think poor folks can afford that?

That is a great deal of money, but the article clearly states that they will be reimbursed that money when they pass.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzard (Post 171024)
I find it to be a total conflict of interest on the Gov's part too. How nice that he and wife share stock in a company that provides drug screens. Putting it under his wife's name doesn't take away the conflict. Sure they say they won't apply for the contract now, but they will eventually imo.

Did you completely miss the part where a) they were found to be not guilty of conflict of interest on two seperate counts and b) "He subsequently sold his majority stake in the company"? This means he doesn't have any chance of making money off this & his conflict of interest is negated.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzard (Post 171024)
I thought folks wanted a less intrusive government, maybe that's only the one's who care about the CONUS though.

This is kind of an interesting case, isn't it? On the one hand, the government is taking a bit more power for itself (making itself larger), but on the other hand the whole purpose of that power is to remove itself from the lives of some of its citizens (making itself smaller). Who wants to lay on odds that they two won't balance out? :laugh:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzard (Post 171024)
EDIT: How about we deny any welfare or any benefits to fat people, because we know that they chose the gluttonous lifestyle with their unhealthy eating habits? Do you really want to live in a nanny state? Attacking and charging the poor when they don't have the funds to feed themselves is repulsive and unAmerican.

While I understand the correlation you're drawing between a pair of 2 unhealthy lifestyle choices, the simple flaw is that being overweight isn't illegal while being a drug abuser is. The simple, underlying premise of the bill is that if you're going to receive state funds, you shouldn't be breaking state laws. This is very similar to when you as a father (you did say you have kids, right? If I'm remembering this incorrectly, then clearly I mean this as a hypothetical scenario!! :laugh:) withhold your child's allowance (or cell phone or car keys or etc., etc., etc.) because they disobeyed you by breaking curfew. In both situations, the money is a privilege, not a right & is therefore capable of being revoked for infractions.

NateR 07-04-2011 01:35 AM

I see nothing at all wrong with this law. Anyone applying for government aid (welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc.) should be required to submit to a drug test prior to receiving that aid.

It's only logical and there's nothing unconstitutional about it. If you object to the test, then you simply don't receive the government aid. It's not like welfare, unemployment benefits, etc are constitutional rights; so no freedoms are being infringed upon.

Some might argue that there are people who depend on that money, but therein lies the problem. Nobody should depend on government handouts to survive. That gives the government way too much control over the life and death of its citizens - something that no government should have.

flo 07-04-2011 02:03 AM

Well said, Nate, well said. It's time that people remembered that this isn't money from some government lock box - it's from the sweat of the American taxpayer. There's now a generation of people who believe it's "owed" to them. I think it was Dawn who posted about seeing just that attitude in working with people seeking to receive disability payments.

Time to tighten up the government handouts and fraud connected to entitlement spending - ALL gov't spending, for that matter, including DoD.

flo 07-04-2011 02:05 AM

It was a step back, IMO, to do away with assets being a consideration for receiving FS; this is a step forward.

Whew, good thing the ACLU is on the case.


/not

Buzzard 07-04-2011 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiritwalker (Post 171039)
If you want assistance from the state in living... you shouldn't be breaking the state's laws.

You're going with the assumption that they are already guilty. Innocent until proven guilty is how we do it in America. Are you going to check them to make sure they don't drink alcohol, after all, you don't want them buying booze with that money do you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiritwalker (Post 171039)
I do know that there are people that mooch off the state.... I do know that when I was in the hospital...I heard one guy telling another guy to "forget that job.. get you some food stamps.. and sell those".... and the article shows that they will recoup the cost of the test..

Anecdotal. Was this guy on drugs? Not even related to this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiritwalker (Post 171039)
I don't care about who makes money on the tests... I do care that money that I would rather see go to more cops.. better teachers... and such... do NOT go to provide for an addition

I do care who makes money, especially if it involves a conflict of interest. Again, innocent until proven guilty is how we do it here in America. Unlawful search.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiritwalker (Post 171039)
the contiguous United States??? maybe your fairly well off.. or still living at home... but I don't want my tax dollars being snorted up a nose and such...

CONUS is the CONstitution of the United States. Again, you are making an assumption of guilt based on them being poor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiritwalker (Post 171039)
Would you rather provide for those that don't want to provide fro themselves because their are people out there that will provide for them.. and then allow them to pervert the system that takes from you.. and gives to them...?

That's not the issue. Innocent until proven guilty and no illegal searches and seizure is what I wish. Are you going to smell their fingers to make sure they don't smell like McD's fries?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiritwalker (Post 171039)
I would rather see the new(ish) debit cards that took the place of food stamps... can only be used at local government "grocery stores". And in those stores.. no.. there are no Doritos .. and such.. it would suck for the kids... not to get a treat.. but I am working my arse off.. to provide for my family.. I shouldn't have to subsidize people I don't even know while they are puffing on the pipe.... I haven't had a great steak in a while... but my taxes go to provide for the family with the Escalade in their front yard.. while their house is falling down... and yes.. I am using a specific example.. 4 miles from my home.. that's exactly what's going on.. and they still have their cable TV... but the cops still cruise by.. can't wait...

Now I can agree with you a bit on this. Make it so the cards are ID picture cards so they can't be bartered and make it so only food and necessities are allowed, but don't punish the poor by making them pay for a drug test which they already can't afford. If they wish to voluntarily take a test and get treatment, I'm ok with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiritwalker (Post 171039)
When I was a kid.. I lived on government cheese and such.. but my mom always had a bottle of cheap vodka and smokes in the house.. my mom used to sell her food stamps to friends and family for .50 on the dollar. I am not kidding... that's how it was... I don't want to fund that at all.

That sucks for you and I'm sorry you had to go through that. Alcohol is legal though so your mom wouldn't be caught in that and could still continue that even if she had to take a drug test.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.