Florida - Want Welfare? Take a Urinalysis

[LibocalypseNow]

Yeah if they legalized marijuana I think alot of the positive drug tests would go down, if I'm not mistaken most people who fail their drug tests is because of weed. Its time I think to just go ahead and legalize.

The Weed isn't so bad. I don't smoke it but from my own observations,it's not any worse than Alcohol. In fact it's probably less harmful overall. I do not support legalizing all Drugs though. Some Drugs are just bad all the way around. Once they legalize Marijuana,these Drug Tests will only catch the hardcore harmful Drug-Users. So just legalize the Weed. The time has come.

I think wer just at the point where if people smoke weed at their home away from work, it should be fine, just make it like alcohol where you can't drive or come to work high.

I agree.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Actually, cannabis is less harmful to the human body than alcohol ever thought about being.

And, drink long enough, your body will become physically addicted to alcohol. Never gonna happen with cannabis.

What's more? Cannabis doesn't make a person violent, alcohol does.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Actually, cannabis is less harmful to the human body than alcohol ever thought about being.

And, drink long enough, your body will become physically addicted to alcohol. Never gonna happen with cannabis.

What's more? Cannabis doesn't make a person violent, alcohol does.

Good points. Yea legalizing Marijuana would reduce these positive Drug Tests dramatically. I'm still not for legalizing all Drugs though. I believe some Drugs are just bad all around. But Marijuana in moderation,seems perfectly fine to me. I think it's a Win/Win for the most part in legalizing Marijuana. The Government would be happy and so would Millions of Citizens.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure - CNN

I'll be curious to see how it turns out. In theory, it sounds like a good idea to me but the government is in charge of it. So now, they're going to lease facilities, buy insurance, hire med-techs, hire administrators, buy the kits themselves, design and activate one of the biggest data-bases in the country - then of course maintain it, then there are the lawsuits that are sure to ensue....

So I think it's a GREAT idea. I am just curious to see whether the government spends more on it than they save or vice versa...

 

[AllieBaba]

It is my experience that the people who cannot manage to conquer a marijuana addiction to the point they cant' pass a drug test that they know they will be taking are also addicted to other substances.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It is my experience that the people who cannot manage to conquer a marijuana addiction to the point they cant' pass a drug test that they know they will be taking are also addicted to other substances.

Yo........Always A Babbling Bitch........it is IMPOSSIBLE to become physically addicted to cannabis.

And don't try that mental addiction, because people can become mentally addicted to anything, shopping, people, dogs, gambling, etc.

BTW..........anyone that supports keeping cannabis illegal is a racist, either closeted or direct, because the whole reason marijuana became illegal in the first place is because a racist FBI man named Anslinger wanted to find a way to put all the black and brown people in jail.

He settled on making marijuana illegal, because at the time only black and brown people smoked it.

 

[dblack]

so if we HAVE to feed their kids, and that frees up their funds to purchase drugs how can you say we aren't subsidizing their drug addiction?? please explain???

That's the nature of welfare. And I'm not defending it. I'm opposed to it (though, in general, I'd rather see our taxes go to feed the poor than bailout Bear Stearns or fuel the war machine). But what I'm complaining about in this case is making matters worse by accepting intrusive government as some kind of tit-for-tat 'balancing' between the left and the right. Pretty much any government service outside basic law enforcement is going to 'subsidize' people in some way. If we allow that fact to be used as an excuse to whittle away at our freedoms, we're going to regret it.

Two other points that I've made repeatedly, but seem to get ignored:

1. No one is saying it's ok for anyone to break the law, or that there's anything wrong with saying that people who do shouldn't get benefits. That's not the issue. If they are suspected of illegal drug use and we can make it stick in court, then kick them off the welfare roles. But that's not what's happening. What Florida is doing is insisting that the basic constitutional assumption of 'innocent until proven guilty' be tossed aside for welfare applicants - that they should be required to prove their innocence instead.

2. We can and should fight against programs that build dependency and become state tools for 'social engineering'. But fighting them in this way is, to me, idiotic. It's like some kind of weird 'one-upsmanship' where the Republicans are competing with the Democrats to see who can deplete our rights the fastest. "You want us to support druggies and deadbeats? Fine, then they better damn well tow the line!" -or- "You wanna socialize medicine? Fine, then we'll insist that everyone take weekly drug tests and report to their state appointed 'health monitor' once a week to prove they're taking good care of themselves! Why should we pay for their unhealthy choices?" This approach means we're getting the worst kind of authoritarian government on both counts. Who's left to stand up for anything like freedom?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It is my experience that the people who cannot manage to conquer a marijuana addiction to the point they cant' pass a drug test that they know they will be taking are also addicted to other substances.

Not so sure about that. But i'm not in favor of legalizing all Drugs. I'm ok with Marijuana though. In the end,the Government does have the right to set up requirements for receiving Welfare Benefits. Just like an Employer has the right to Drug Test potential Employees. No one is forced to accept Government Welfare Benefits. Either you meet the requirements or you just move on. The Government is well within their rights.

 

[ABikerSailor]

And........fwiw.............they could make ALL drugs legal tomorrow, and I still would NOT do cocaine, heroin or anything like that.

I'd smoke a whole bunch of marijuana though............

 

[AllieBaba]

My point, idiot, is that if you are so far gone that you can't pass a test for cannabis, that you know is coming up...chances are you have other issues, too, and chances are those issues include addiction to other substances.

If you're saying that cannabis isn't addictive, one wonders why we need to legalize it to accomodate all the otherwise normal people who can't give it up, even if they have to go hungry or to jail for smoking it.

 

[WillowTree]

so if we HAVE to feed their kids, and that frees up their funds to purchase drugs how can you say we aren't subsidizing their drug addiction?? please explain???

That's the nature of welfare. And I'm not defending it. I'm opposed to it (though, in general, I'd rather see our taxes go to feed the poor than bailout Bear Stearns or fuel the war machine). But what I'm complaining about in this case is making matters worse by accepting intrusive government as some kind of tit-for-tat 'balancing' between the left and the right. Pretty much any government service outside basic law enforcement is going to 'subsidize' people in some way. If we allow that fact to be used as an excuse to whittle away at our freedoms, we're going to regret it.

Two other points that I've made repeatedly, but seem to get ignored:

1. No one is saying it's ok for anyone to break the law, or that there's anything wrong with saying that people who do shouldn't get benefits. That's not the issue. If they are suspected of illegal drug use and we can make it stick in court, then kick them off the welfare roles. But that's not what's happening. What Florida is doing is insisting that the basic constitutional assumption of 'innocent until proven guilty' be tossed aside for welfare applicants - that they should be required to prove their innocence instead.

2. We can and should fight against programs that build dependency and become state tools for 'social engineering'. But fighting them in this way is, to me, idiotic. It's like some kind of weird 'one-upsmanship' where the Republicans are competing with the Democrats to see who can deplete our rights the fastest. "You want us to support druggies and deadbeats? Fine, then they better damn well tow the line!" -or- "You wanna socialize medicine? Fine, then we'll insist that everyone take weekly drug tests and report to their state appointed 'health monitor' once a week to prove they're taking good care of themselves! Why should we pay for their unhealthy choices?" This approach means we're getting the worst kind of authoritarian government on both counts. Who's left to stand up for anything like freedom?

How do you figure that? If you fail the drug test you fail. If you think it's false then appeal the decision. If we are a nation of laws so be it. This law passed through both houses in Florida and was signed into law. It's the law. And in every case if you feel the law is wrong you have two choices, appeal it or overturn it.

 

[dblack]

Either you meet the requirements or you just move on. The Government is well within their rights.

That's a specious argument, Lib. You could make the same case for any onerous demand that government decides to make. Would you also defend drug-testing for parents, as a condition of sending their kids to public school? If they don't meet the requirement they can 'just move on' right? (send their kids to private school, homeschool, etc...) No one is forcing them to send their kids to public school.

 

[dblack]

How do you figure that? If you fail the drug test you fail. If you think it's false then appeal the decision.

How do I figure what? I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm opposed to the idea that you should have to take a drug test to 'prove your innocence' as a condition of eligibility for any state service.

This law passed through both houses in Florida and was signed into law. It's the law. And in every case if you feel the law is wrong you have two choices, appeal it or overturn it.

Yep. That's pretty much what needs to happen. It's blatantly unconstitutional, violating the 14th and the 4th amendments of the Federal Constitution (and those do apply to states, btw).

 

[WillowTree]

How do you figure that? If you fail the drug test you fail. If you think it's false then appeal the decision.

How do I figure what? I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm opposed to the idea that you should have to take a drug test to 'prove your innocence' as a condition of eligibility for any state service.

This law passed through both houses in Florida and was signed into law. It's the law. And in every case if you feel the law is wrong you have two choices, appeal it or overturn it.

Yep. That's pretty much what needs to happen. It's blatantly unconstitutional, violating the 14th and the 4th amendments of the Federal Constitution (and those do apply to states, btw).

well, we have laws against unreasonable search and seizure too, and that law is violated thousands of times each day.. so you can fly. and that definitely assumes guilt until proven innocent.

 

[dblack]

well, we have laws against unreasonable search and seizure too, and that law is violated thousands of times each day.. so you can fly. and that definitely assumes guilt until proven innocent.

Wanna start another thread?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Either you meet the requirements or you just move on. The Government is well within their rights.

That's a specious argument, Lib. You could make the same case for any onerous demand that government decides to make. Would you also defend drug-testing for parents, as a condition of sending their kids to public school? If they don't meet the requirement they can 'just move on' right? (send their kids to private school, homeschool, etc...) No one is forcing them to send their kids to public school.

This is the problem with Nanny Staters in general. They want to always have it both ways. Nanny Staters are the first ones to get out there and screech for banning this or that. But they like to pick & choose when it's alright to take others' freedoms and liberties away. Well i'm sorry,it doesn't always go the way you want it to go. The Government is now requiring you pass a Drug Test before receiving Welfare benefits. Oh well,you better get clean or forget about your Freebies. The Welfare Recipient doesn't get to dictate what the requirements will be. Either meet the requirements or simply move on. No one is forcing anyone to accept Welfare Benefits. No one has to take these Drug Tests. Such is life in the Nanny State World. So get over it.

 

[WillowTree]

well, we have laws against unreasonable search and seizure too, and that law is violated thousands of times each day.. so you can fly. and that definitely assumes guilt until proven innocent.

Wanna start another thread?

might be a good idea if we compared apples to oranges but we ain't

 

[Moonglow]

I am sure the ACLU is doing the groundwork now for a case in the future.

 

[dblack]

Such is life in the Nanny State World. So get over it.

So, you're Embracing your Inner Nanny?

 

[shintao]

It is my experience that the people who cannot manage to conquer a marijuana addiction to the point they cant' pass a drug test that they know they will be taking are also addicted to other substances.

Not so sure about that. But i'm not in favor of legalizing all Drugs. I'm ok with Marijuana though. In the end,the Government does have the right to set up requirements for receiving Welfare Benefits. Just like an Employer has the right to Drug Test potential Employees. No one is forced to accept Government Welfare Benefits. Either you meet the requirements or you just move on. The Government is well within their rights.

No, the gov. is not within it's rights, because the rights being proposed are unconstitutional.

If government takes over the food supply and decides all women must strip naked to get food, how is that a government right? Government should be limited to giving the benefits without any strings attached, or don't give them. Intimidating and intrusions into our life is flat wrong and at times unconstitutional.