Florida - Want Welfare? Take a Urinalysis

[uscitizen]

bullshit!

the hair test show many drugs used months ago.

You're correct, but that test is extremely expensive and takes months before results.

No it doesn't...i know people that have used the shampoo and it works. But they have to wash their hair (all hair...just in case!) the day they're taking the test. Otherwise it wears off or something.

HP uses it for call center employees making $8/hr.
And it seemd to take less than a week for results.

 

[Moonglow]

hair folicle test are not done in welfare cases, they are too expensive, plus court rulings on the subject have proved that they are unreliable because foreign contaminants can infliltrate the hair and give a negative response.
When Iwas in the military and studying law, one of my thesis papers was on the drug tests and the breathalizers tests.

I say you so called repubs and libertarians call for less intrussive government but want more govt. control and intrusion into peoples lives with drug tests. This law like the one in Michigan will be struck down because it is an invasion of privacy . The only time any agency of the government may tests for drugs is when there is evidence of drug use.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yeah, it depends on who does it, where they do it.

Child welfare does ua tests on a regular basis..they have the mental health providers do it, it only takes a couple of days.

And it's $$$$$$.

 

[Moonglow]

If you're doing Drugs and raising Children,you're not only incredibly stupid but you're also a criminal. If these people do test Positive,arrests on charges of Child Abuse should be pursued. Them not getting their Freebies shouldn't be the only issue. There are most likely some very serious problems in the Home.

You've got a point.

Why is it that you and your conservative brothers and sisters only target the improvished?

The wealthy do all sorts of drugs. Ask Rush Limbaugh.

And they cost society a great deal more. TARP and several other bailouts have proved that.

Limbaugh works and pays his Taxes. His Drug use is his business. As far as TARP goes,i don't support Corporate Welfare either.

Rush broke the law by obtainingg drugs illegally, he also got caught with prescriptions for other people. It is our business because of his ill tempered drug rants in which he claims all drug users should go to prison, why did he never go to prison?

 

[uscitizen]

hair folicle test are not done in welfare cases, they are too expensive, plus court rulings on the subject have proved that they are unreliable because foreign contaminants can infliltrate the hair and give a negative response.
When Iwas in the military and studying law, one of my thesis papers was on the drug tests and the breathalizers tests.

I say you so called repubs and libertarians call for less intrussive government but want more govt. control and intrusion into peoples lives with drug tests. This law like the one in Michigan will be struck down because it is an invasion of privacy . The only time any agency of the government may tests for drugs is when there is evidence of drug use.

Yep many right wingers are for smaller govt except for the cases they want bigger govt.
Such as Drug use, and several for your own good laws.

 

[AllieBaba]

hair folicle test are not done in welfare cases, they are too expensive, plus court rulings on the subject have proved that they are unreliable because foreign contaminants can infliltrate the hair and give a negative response.
When Iwas in the military and studying law, one of my thesis papers was on the drug tests and the breathalizers tests.

I say you so called repubs and libertarians call for less intrussive government but want more govt. control and intrusion into peoples lives with drug tests. This law like the one in Michigan will be struck down because it is an invasion of privacy . The only time any agency of the government may tests for drugs is when there is evidence of drug use.

I think they (and I'm Repub) are calling for it because they mistakenly think it will REDUCE welfare costs. They aren't thinking it through.

 

[WillowTree]

So,, in conclusion. Can any liberal summerize for us why the taxpayer should subsidize people who then turn around and spend their money on drugs? I've thought about it and I can't justify it. And, leave off the kids will starve. We feed the kids in school.. TIA..

A hypothetical question lacking any evidence in reality. I would doubt anyone would support welfare benefits going to drugs, of course women can whore for drugs and still use the entire check for the kids.

What is interesting is that Florida state assumes the new recipent can pay for the drug test before getting benefits. That escapes logic and it is counter to the purpose of directing funds to the poor. Of course she can whore for money to pay the drug test. She will most likely hook into a druggie who pays the fee in exchange for sex.

Florida assumes nothing. They stipulate it. It's a mandate.. I see no reason why taxpayer money should subsidize drug use. there isn't any reason. That's why I can't see it.

 

[Moonglow]

Yeah, it depends on who does it, where they do it.

Child welfare does ua tests on a regular basis..they have the mental health providers do it, it only takes a couple of days.

And it's $$$$$$.

But yet the same people clamering for the exspensive tests are the same ones that claim govt. is spending to much monies and there is too much govt. in our lives.
Most tests are urinalysis and it is 75 bucks or less.

 

[AllieBaba]

You aren't subsidizing drug use, you're keeping the children of addicts from starving and turning to crime to feed themselves.

It won't be pretty when we have kids begging on the streets of America.

 

[Moonglow]

So,, in conclusion. Can any liberal summerize for us why the taxpayer should subsidize people who then turn around and spend their money on drugs? I've thought about it and I can't justify it. And, leave off the kids will starve. We feed the kids in school.. TIA..

A hypothetical question lacking any evidence in reality. I would doubt anyone would support welfare benefits going to drugs, of course women can whore for drugs and still use the entire check for the kids.

What is interesting is that Florida state assumes the new recipent can pay for the drug test before getting benefits. That escapes logic and it is counter to the purpose of directing funds to the poor. Of course she can whore for money to pay the drug test. She will most likely hook into a druggie who pays the fee in exchange for sex.

Florida assumes nothing. They stipulate it. It's a mandate.. I see no reason why taxpayer money should subsidize drug use. there isn't any reason. That's why I can't see it.

prove to me that this is happening. The tests can also be used to abuse the system and deny certain people the necessities they need. If you are poor do you have 75 bucks to spare for a tests? I think not, if I had 75 dollars I would use it to support my family.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yeah, it depends on who does it, where they do it.

Child welfare does ua tests on a regular basis..they have the mental health providers do it, it only takes a couple of days.

And it's $$$$$$.

But yet the same people clamering for the exspensive tests are th same ones that claim govt. is spending to much monies andthere is too much govt. in our lives.
Most tests are urinalysis and it is 75 bucks or less.

I know. I'm against it, always have been. It has no place in a welfare program that serves addicts.

 

[bodecea]

Can you imagine how much money would be saved if all 50 states enacted this ?

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure - CNN

Personally, I have no problem with the concept, but having run "Operation Golden Flow" in a few commands, the actual process might be a bit much....watching them pee...chain of custody...cost of testing...what you test for (can't test for everything), etc.

 

[AllieBaba]

Of course you have no problem with it, Bode. It's all about getting rid of those pesky poor people. Abortion, starvation, euthanasia...it's all good.

 

[Sunshine]

In Nashville, people have been getting evicted from public housing for using drugs for years now. No tests. Just getting caught using or having drugs in the apartment gets you thrown out. Yes, they do routine inspections there just like everywhere. When I was working in the projects I saw many signs on the doors saying 'Drug Eviction.' The person's or family's belongings are taken out and put at the curb where other residents come and pilfer through taking what they want.

See, there's nothing new under the sun. Even in Florida. It seems that the middle class are so far removed from this type of living and environment that all they can really do is speculate about what goes on.

 

[WillowTree]

You aren't subsidizing drug use, you're keeping the children of addicts from starving and turning to crime to feed themselves.

It won't be pretty when we have kids begging on the streets of America.

We feed the kids freeing up their money to buy drugs, if that isn't subsidizing I don't know what is.. Allie.

 

[Moonglow]

So,, in conclusion. Can any liberal summerize for us why the taxpayer should subsidize people who then turn around and spend their money on drugs? I've thought about it and I can't justify it. And, leave off the kids will starve. We feed the kids in school.. TIA..

A hypothetical question lacking any evidence in reality. I would doubt anyone would support welfare benefits going to drugs, of course women can whore for drugs and still use the entire check for the kids.

What is interesting is that Florida state assumes the new recipent can pay for the drug test before getting benefits. That escapes logic and it is counter to the purpose of directing funds to the poor. Of course she can whore for money to pay the drug test. She will most likely hook into a druggie who pays the fee in exchange for sex.

Florida assumes nothing. They stipulate it. It's a mandate.. I see no reason why taxpayer money should subsidize drug use. there isn't any reason. That's why I can't see it.

It is not a mandate from the masses, it is a farce legislative issue inwhich legislature(republicans) are showing how cruel and unusual they can be at a state level.

 

[WillowTree]

A hypothetical question lacking any evidence in reality. I would doubt anyone would support welfare benefits going to drugs, of course women can whore for drugs and still use the entire check for the kids.

What is interesting is that Florida state assumes the new recipent can pay for the drug test before getting benefits. That escapes logic and it is counter to the purpose of directing funds to the poor. Of course she can whore for money to pay the drug test. She will most likely hook into a druggie who pays the fee in exchange for sex.

Florida assumes nothing. They stipulate it. It's a mandate.. I see no reason why taxpayer money should subsidize drug use. there isn't any reason. That's why I can't see it.

It is not a mandate from the masses, it is a farce legislative issue inwhich legislature(republicans) are showing how cruel and unusual they can be at a state level.

What is cruel about it? doyathink? What's cruel is expecting men and women to work forty hours a week and then be forced to turn over a part of their paycheck to subsidize drug users.

 

[AllieBaba]

Except they won't use money to buy food. That's why they're where they are. The food goes to the kids, it's the only food in the household.

You make the mistake of assuming these are just people who are having a little fun, and will quit doing that if we withhold food. They won't. Right now the snap program feeds kids of addicts. You eliminate the food, you will have starving children. I promise you. You might be okay with that, I'm not. And it's asinine to pretend it's about saving money when you know it will cost more to put such a plan in place.

 

[WillowTree]

Except they won't use money to buy food. That's why they're where they are. The food goes to the kids, it's the only food in the household.

You make the mistake of assuming these are just people who are having a little fun, and will quit doing that if we withhold food. They won't. Right now the snap program feeds kids of addicts. You eliminate the food, you will have starving children. I promise you. You might be okay with that, I'm not. And it's asinine to pretend it's about saving money when you know it will cost more to put such a plan in place.

We feed the children twice a day in school. You want me to feed the children? I will. Take them out of the drug addicts home. I'm not up to putting taxpayers money in their households so they can buy drugs. What part of that don't you understand????

 

[WillowTree]

Except they won't use money to buy food. That's why they're where they are. The food goes to the kids, it's the only food in the household.

You make the mistake of assuming these are just people who are having a little fun, and will quit doing that if we withhold food. They won't. Right now the snap program feeds kids of addicts. You eliminate the food, you will have starving children. I promise you. You might be okay with that, I'm not. And it's asinine to pretend it's about saving money when you know it will cost more to put such a plan in place.

What do they use money for? then? If they don't use money to buy food the children starve.. is that correct????? take the children.