Florida sets the bar...

[MrBug708]

Scott signs bill requiring drug test to receive welfare | TBO.com (http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/may/31/2/scott-signs-bills-requiring-welfare-drug-tests-ban-ar-233914/)

If you receive government assistance, you must pass a drug test.

“While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction,” Scott said in a press release issued after the signing.

[Doug5984]

There is a rep in Louisiana who tries to pass this every year- and it always ends up getting hung up somewhere along the way.

[Noop]

I applaud this.

[Dr. Sak]

I applaud this.

+10000

[Galaxy]

I like it, but will the costs of managing the drug tests be worth it?

[Abe Sargent]

Go ACLU, sue the shit out of them. I cannot believe this is legal.

[Noop]

I like it, but will the costs of managing the drug tests be worth it?

I believe the person is responsible for getting the test done and they will be reimbursed if they pass.

[Noop]

Go ACLU, sue the shit out of them. I cannot believe this is legal.

I perhaps my reading comprehension needs some work but how exactly would this be deemed illegal? The reasoning behind the bill (I haven't read it just gleaming what the article said) is they do not want to fund drug addicts. They would prefer the people on welfare to be clean. Not sure why this is a problem but I am interested in hearing your rationale.

[Abe Sargent]

I perhaps my reading comprehension needs some work but how exactly would this be deemed illegal? The reasoning behind the bill (I haven't read it just gleaming what the article said) is they do not want to fund drug addicts. They would prefer the people on welfare to be clean. Not sure why this is a problem but I am interested in hearing your rationale.

I got Social Security for five years, I don;t want to have to take a drug test because of it. This is easily a slippery slope to other programs. Unemployment? WIC? Public Housing? Social Security? We don't want to fund drug addicts, right?

[Lathum]

I got Social Security for five years, I don;t want to have to take a drug test because of it. This is easily a slippery slope to other programs. Unemployment? WIC? Public Housing? Social Security? We don't want to fund drug addicts, right?

Then blame the losers who were the reason a law like this became necessary. Not the lawmakers who are acting in the best interest of the people who elected them.

[Flasch186]

My problem is that the person who needs welfare has to scrounge up the funds to get a drug test... What if they can't find the money?

[larrymcg421]

See, I don't view drug addicts as losers in the same way as others. I've seen the toll it takes on people and the struggle it takes to get clean. I think cutting off assistance to these people will only make things worse and eventually result in increased crime. I'd rather the government look for ways to help people break the cycle of addiction than just blindly cutting them off and hoping the problem goes away.

[Lathum]

See, I don't view drug addicts as losers in the same way as others. I've seen the toll it takes on people and the struggle it takes to get clean. I think cutting off assistance to these people will only make things worse and eventually result in increased crime. I'd rather the government look for ways to help people break the cycle of addiction than just blindly cutting them off and hoping the problem goes away.

That is all fine and good for the ones who want to be helped, but in my experiences a large percentage of these people don't want to be helped. They want to keep getting their handouts.

[JPhillips]

I perhaps my reading comprehension needs some work but how exactly would this be deemed illegal? The reasoning behind the bill (I haven't read it just gleaming what the article said) is they do not want to fund drug addicts. They would prefer the people on welfare to be clean. Not sure why this is a problem but I am interested in hearing your rationale.

Illegal searches. You can't require people to submit bodily fluids without cause.

[Lathum]

Illegal searches. You can't require people to submit bodily fluids without cause.

Are they required to give people welfare?

[jeff061]

Illegal searches. You can't require people to submit bodily fluids without cause.


They aren't being required to.

[Marc Vaughan]

I think its a ludicrous idea - especially from someone who's claiming to be fiscally sensible ....

The tests will cost the state a large amount of money (claimants only pay if they fail) and a lot of the tests will be on demographics who are wholly unlikely to be addicts .... that 65 year old widow, she looks like a likely crack addict to me ;)

PS - IMHO it'll last a year or so and then get over-ruled somewhere along the line as unconstitutional (as I believe have previous similar attempts in the past) ... making it even more pointless, expensive and ineffectual ...

[Galaxy]

My problem is that the person who needs welfare has to scrounge up the funds to get a drug test... What if they can't find the money?

If Noop is correct, I believe that those who pass would get reimbursed. How often will they be drug test? Will it be random?

Personally, I think welfare needs to broken down and reformed.

[Scoobz0202]

How much would a drug screening cost the person applying? Even if reimbursed? And how long till the reimbursement?

(all honest questions)

[RendeR]

There is nothing illegal about this, The law simply ads another requirement to the many requirements to receive government funded welfare.

You are not required to apply for welfare. You are not automagically granted welfare, you must apply, go through a screening process and be granted an amount based on your need.

If you fail a drug test, you would simply be ineligible. The same way you would be if you made too much money or lied about children/family members in your care.

The savings in how much is being handed out far outweighs the costs of testing. There are many programs for assisting those with real addictions.


In general I applaud the Bill and hope more states follow suit.

All that said, this issue goes away and un fracking believable amounts of money are saved (even GAINED) simply by legalizing most drugs and taxing the shit out of them.

The lives of most users won't change, people destined to fail will still fail, others will not. Drug cartels will end as there won't be a lucrative money market here in the US any longer.

The ignorance of those still clinging to the long ago lost "war on drugs" is truly holding back the nation as a whole. Its a bigger drain on our country than welfare.

[JPhillips]

They aren't being required to.

In the eyes of the court they are. Michigan already tried this and it was ruled unconstitutional. You can't require searches based solely on poverty.

[panerd]

I am very conservative on most economic matters, with welfare being one of them, but my hatred of the phony war on drugs supersedes this by a million. Want to actually do something to save me some money cut the welfare program out completely. (Though I would cut the military industrial complex way before the social safety nets) Want to just pander for votes like this pr joke? Fuck you.

[jeff061]

In the eyes of the court they are. Michigan already tried this and it was ruled unconstitutional. You can't require searches based solely on poverty.

I'm not following, I'm sure I am just stating the obvious.... but they are basing it on giving out welfare. Not poverty. Is welfare now a constitutional right?

[panerd]

Question for all in favor of this... do you also favor drug testing the CEO's of all of the banks and corporations who take plenty of welfare from the taxpayers?

[jeff061]

Now you are just being silly.

[Klinglerware]

So, Rick Scott's wife owns what again? Oh yeah...

Gov. Rick Scott, Solantic and conflict of interest: What's the deal? - St. Petersburg Times (http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/article1161158.ece)

[DaddyTorgo]

So, Rick Scott's wife owns what again? Oh yeah...

Gov. Rick Scott, Solantic and conflict of interest: What's the deal? - St. Petersburg Times (http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/article1161158.ece)

Without reading I'm going to say "the drug testing lab that has already received a no-bid contract to complete the work required by this new law."

Fucking corrupt POS banana-republic they've got down there in Florida. Seriously...WTF!?!?!

I hope Florida voters are fucking embarrassed that they elected this POS at this point.

[DaddyTorgo]

Well I was close.

FWIW that's fucking absurd. The fact that there's no law against this type of BS is ridiculous. Oh yeah...sure you don't benefit from it because it's in your wife's name. And yet wait...you're still married to her, right???

I fail to see how even a blind squirrel wouldn't find a conflict in that.

[larrymcg421]

Everyone receives some kind of government benefit in some way, shape, or form. You can't just single out one group of people who receive one benefit and impose such a requirement on them. That's what the court found in the Michigan case and I suspct they'll find that here as well.

Just because something isn't a right doesn't mean the government can force you to submit bodily fluids to partake in it.

[BYU 14]

I think its a ludicrous idea - especially from someone who's claiming to be fiscally sensible ....

The tests will cost the state a large amount of money (claimants only pay if they fail) and a lot of the tests will be on demographics who are wholly unlikely to be addicts .... that 65 year old widow, she looks like a likely crack addict to me ;)

PS - IMHO it'll last a year or so and then get over-ruled somewhere along the line as unconstitutional (as I believe have previous similar attempts in the past) ... making it even more pointless, expensive and ineffectual ...

Working for an administrator of Medicaid insurance I actually have to disagree. There are other ways to prevent abuse for sure, but I don't oppose this. Maybe alter the requirements to allow those that don't pass the opportunity to get clean and then submit to future testing or lose their benefits, or even leave it as is. A lot more taxpayor dollars are wasted on those in these programs that run up expensive medical bills due to drug abuse and related health conditions, thenn would ever be spent on screening applicants for assistance.

[-apoc-]

Our governor is a god damn criminal and he is now using the state to funnel even more money into his pocket after committing the largest medicare fraud in history. Anyone who sticks up for this plan should know exactly why he is doing it. Not to save the state any money but to put more in his pocket.

[AENeuman]

Rule one in politics: only cut programs from non-voters

The best would be if they gave a drug test to college students before they get student aid.

[Neon_Chaos]

Over here in the Philippines, you are required to take a drug test on your own dime before you're able to get a driver's license.

[RainMaker]

I got Social Security for five years, I don;t want to have to take a drug test because of it. This is easily a slippery slope to other programs. Unemployment? WIC? Public Housing? Social Security? We don't want to fund drug addicts, right?
Social Security and Unemployment are not welfare. We have to make a distinction in that.

It's not something I'd push, but I don't have a problem with it. If you can afford to buy drugs, you shouldn't need welfare. My problem is more that we are scoring political points off people like this and not going after the people that are truly damaging the country. It just diverts attention away from real problems and stirs up class warfare.

Do find it ironic when conservatives support things like this. It's sort of funny how these "constitution buffs" only seem to carry about one Amendment.

[ISiddiqui]

I'd put it this way, you don't have to offer a health plan if you are a company, but once you do, there are restrictions in place. Same thing here with the states. You don't have to offer welfare, but once you do, you can't be discriminatory in certain ways with it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The ignorance of those still clinging to the long ago lost "war on drugs" is truly holding back the nation as a whole. Its a bigger drain on our country than welfare.

And the ethical & moral bankruptcy of those who find "surrender" as an option is a bigger drain than either.

[DanGarion]

If you fail a drug test, you would simply be ineligible. The same way you would be if you made too much money or lied about children/family members in your care.

And the same way you are ineligible for most if not any job. I don't see much an issue with this.

[larrymcg421]

I'd put it this way, you don't have to offer a health plan if you are a company, but once you do, there are restrictions in place. Same thing here with the states. You don't have to offer welfare, but once you do, you can't be discriminatory in certain ways with it.

This.

[JediKooter]

So is the state of Florida going to provide some kind of program to get the people off drugs, for the people that don't pass the drug tests?

Is there a correlation of people on welfare to people using illegal drugs? Is one the cause of the other? I mean, do you get on welfare and a couple of months later, you're all doped up? Or is it that you've been doped up and now you need welfare?

Is the state of Florida just going to leave these people hanging out to dry and turn their backs on them which will then create a homeless problem? I say homeless problem, because apparently, there's that many people all doped up and on welfare, that required this kind of legislation.

[MrBug708]

Is there any estimates on how many welfare recipients are actually on drugs? 10%? 50%? 90%?

[MrBug708]

Also, it's illegal to give people a drug test, but it's mandatory to get inoculated to attend school? This seems to create a thin line between the two, no?

[Desnudo]

So is the state of Florida going to provide some kind of program to get the people off drugs, for the people that don't pass the drug tests?

Is there a correlation of people on welfare to people using illegal drugs? Is one the cause of the other? I mean, do you get on welfare and a couple of months later, you're all doped up? Or is it that you've been doped up and now you need welfare?

Is the state of Florida just going to leave these people hanging out to dry and turn their backs on them which will then create a homeless problem? I say homeless problem, because apparently, there's that many people all doped up and on welfare, that required this kind of legislation.

The correlation they should be looking for is if people are using welfare money / food stamps to buy drugs and is it a large enough a problem to warrant a public policy. Otherwise, it's just PR bullshit claming to address a problem that may not really exist.

[JonInMiddleGA]

is it a large enough a problem to warrant a public policy.

"Any" is plenty .... and I'm reasonably confident that there wouldn't be a shortage of voters that would agree.

[JediKooter]

The correlation they should be looking for is if people are using welfare money / food stamps to buy drugs and is it a large enough a problem to warrant a public policy. Otherwise, it's just PR bullshit claming to address a problem that may not really exist.

Ok, so I went back and read the article and unfortunately, they didn't mention anything about a correlation between drug use and welfare or welfare money being used to buy drugs.

The only thing I could find was from this article: Michigan begins random drug testing of welfare recipients (http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/drug-n09.shtml) It's a bit dated, so the data may be different now. However, this quote jumped out at me: "Despite evidence from a 1996 federal study showing that the percentage of welfare recipients using, abusing, or dependent on alcohol or drugs [is] relatively small and consistent with the general U.S. population and those not receiving welfare benefits".

So call me skeptical on this being a big enough problem to warrant this legislation.

EDIT: Oh and the Michigan law was struck down as being unconstitutional.

[Desnudo]

"Any" is plenty .... and I'm reasonably confident that there wouldn't be a shortage of voters that would agree.

Without any quantifiable data that shows the scope of the problem, I disagree. Nothing is free. If you told the voters in Florida their property or sales tax will increase due to this law, I think you'd see a shortage.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Without any quantifiable data that shows the scope of the problem, I disagree. Nothing is free. If you told the voters in Florida their property or sales tax will increase due to this law, I think you'd see a shortage.

Didn't I see up the thread where the cost of testing is borne by the applicant? That leaves (what should be) relatively minor additional personnel to process another layer of paperwork & supervise the implementation.

If it's more than that, the problem lies with the bureaucracy, not the idea itself.

Once this is in place, then you can add a couple of things that make it even more valuable.

1) Require all blood testing facilities to require proof of citizenship before testing.
2) Turn the results of the tests over to law enforcement.

[Qwikshot]

Also, it's illegal to give people a drug test, but it's mandatory to get inoculated to attend school? This seems to create a thin line between the two, no?

Just throwing this out there, but vaccines do prevent harmful outbreaks from disease. I also thought school did random drug tests?

[JPhillips]

For better or worse the Supreme Court has pretty clearly decided that juveniles have almost no rights, so comparing this to school requirements isn't valid.

[Galaxy]

I think we also need to reform how welfare programs can be spent. I've seen food stamps (in card form) being spent on junk food and alcohol. I've also known some cases where those on welfare are able to buy new cars and spend on new clothes from the mall stores.

[DaddyTorgo]

I would actually support at least restricting food stamp cards being restricted to non-alcoholic purchases. Not sure how you could restrict junk foods and stuff...and I think getting it down to that level (or the level of what stores you can spend them at) would just lead to a shit-ton of lobbying.

You'd end up with "food stamps can only be spent at walmart" and essentially have the whole welfare program existing just to funnel private citizen's $$ to walmart coffers - and I think that's not also something we want.

[Abe Sargent]

They aren't being required to.

I'm not required to get a Driver's License, but I would object to having to piss in a cup in order to get one.

[Autumn]

I think that's very state by state, I know people who have had food stamps and they were very restricted as to what they could buy. We've been on WIC, for example, and can only buy very particular items.

[spleen1015]

I don't think this holds up for very long.

I'm with the folks who say welfare needs to be reformed, reformed into non-existence.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not sure how you could restrict junk foods and stuff.

Not that hard really, a matter of coding items in the grocers checkout database best I can tell.

Here in GA there's a number of restrictions on what can/can't be bought, although it isn't junk food. Instead it's "prepared foods" that are off-limits, i.e. things like the pre-made sandwiches in the deli case, a 10 pc fried chicken from the Kroger deli is a no-no, IIRC there's certain bottled waters that are ineligible, etc, etc.

Restricting them is fairly easy on paper ... but along with the mom & pop stores that ring up a lot of "miscellaneous" merchandise there's also a black market for the cards that goes with it, traded for lesser value in cash (which is used for booze, cigs, drugs, the cell phone bill, whatever), then resold at a profit to a third party.

[stevew]

I think that's very state by state, I know people who have had food stamps and they were very restricted as to what they could buy. We've been on WIC, for example, and can only buy very particular items.

Wic is for like milk, cheese, etc.

Foodstamps you can buy doritos, pepsi, and 1000s of other horrible foods.

[Autumn]

Wic is for like milk, cheese, etc.

Foodstamps you can buy doritos, pepsi, and 1000s of other horrible foods.

I may be confused, but for example when I lived in Vermont I believe my friends that were on foodstamps had a lot of restrictions on what they could buy. Maybe they could buy Pepsi, I don't know, but it certainly wasn't anything and everything.

You'd have a hard time getting anyone to agree on what healthy food is, but it seems that in some states at least there are some limits.

[molson]

I think there's a difference between random drug testing of a class of people receiving one kind of government benefit and requiring some type of action or status before you qualify for the benefit in the first place. Every government benefit is going to require some kind of action or status to qualify (age,registering for selective service, number of kids, eyesight, income level, criminal record, place of residence, passport photos, employment, providing physical proof of things and filling out applications.)

[Suburban Rhythm]

Not that hard really, a matter of coding items in the grocers checkout database best I can tell.

Here in GA there's a number of restrictions on what can/can't be bought, although it isn't junk food. Instead it's "prepared foods" that are off-limits, i.e. things like the pre-made sandwiches in the deli case, a 10 pc fried chicken from the Kroger deli is a no-no, IIRC there's certain bottled waters that are ineligible, etc, etc.

Restricting them is fairly easy on paper ... but along with the mom & pop stores that ring up a lot of "miscellaneous" merchandise there's also a black market for the cards that goes with it, traded for lesser value in cash (which is used for booze, cigs, drugs, the cell phone bill, whatever), then resold at a profit to a third party.

Yeah, even back in the early 90's, while working at a grocery store in HS, the computer did all the work. You scanned, and if the customer was using food stamps, you could request a food stamp total. Certain things didn't qualify-- pet food, etc.

Always got people who were pissed when their cigarettes were covered...and I had the audacity to ask for cash for the balance!!

[jeff061]

I'm not required to get a Driver's License, but I would object to having to piss in a cup in order to get one.

Never claimed they should be happy.

[thesloppy]

Meh. This bill would make perfect sense if you could completely ignore that:

Random drug testing is not going to detect all users.
Drug tests are not hard to pass for seasoned drug users.
Drug tests paid for out of a welfare recipients pocket are still being paid for by the taxpayer.

This bill wouldn't stop subsidizing drug use, so much as it would stop subsidizing drug use for a percentage of abusers, while still subsidizing drug use and/or testing evasion for another percentage, and additionally subsidizing the random testing of everybody receiving welfare in the country.

[molson]

Without reading I'm going to say "the drug testing lab that has already received a no-bid contract to complete the work required by this new law."



The whole drug treatment/drug testing through the courts and government is a pretty good scam. You'd be amazed at what "government approved treatment providers" charge to the government to provide absolutely no successful treatment for criminals.

I've thought about parlaying my undergraduate psychology degree into a lucrative "anger management" practice. Nobody would pay for such nonsense from such an unqualified individual except governments, who are happy to pay you whatever you want (if you can forge the right relationships with the right judges and the right government officials.)

[DaddyTorgo]

The whole drug treatment/drug testing through the courts and government is a pretty good scam. You'd be amazed at what "government approved treatment providers" charge to the government to provide absolutely no successful treatment for criminals.

I've thought about parlaying my undergraduate psychology degree into a lucrative "anger management" practice. Nobody would pay for such nonsense from such an unqualified individual except governments, who are happy to pay you whatever you want (if you can forge the right relationships with the right judges and the right government officials.)

And forging those relationships is as easy as arranging a few kickbacks. :D

[molson]

And forging those relationships is as easy as arranging a few kickbacks. :D

Sure, as long as everybody knows how to keep their mouth shut! (Unlike that PA judge that got caught accepting $2+ million in kickbacks from a juvenile treatment provider.) I don't think most of them get caught though, you gotta be a little more subtle. Sometimes just being friends is enough to get that business.

[thesloppy]

If this is the road we're heading down, I'd prefer we start with random drug testing of every publicly elected official and political office holder in the US government.

[molson]

If this is the road we're heading down, I'd prefer we start with random drug testing of every publicly elected official and political office holder in the US government.

They're trying that in Florida right now too, for all state employees. The ACLU has filed suit.

Some police officers and firefighters are randomly tested. Some teachers are too, but that gets more opposition.

[AENeuman]

Not that hard really, a matter of coding items in the grocers checkout database best I can tell.

You really think these purchases are being made in grocery stores? Better yet, you really think all these junk food people are within safe walking distance to a grocery store?


There are way too many non-poor people benefiting from poor people for there to be honest reform. So laws like thins will have to do

[stevew]

I may be confused, but for example when I lived in Vermont I believe my friends that were on foodstamps had a lot of restrictions on what they could buy. Maybe they could buy Pepsi, I don't know, but it certainly wasn't anything and everything.

You'd have a hard time getting anyone to agree on what healthy food is, but it seems that in some states at least there are some limits.

The main restriction that I know of is that it could not be hot prepared food. Cold prepared food, such as a turkey sub, could be purchased with food stamps. And cold prepared coffee drinks were eligible as well. I had a bad stint where I was working at a Sheetz gas station, and the stuff that was food stamp eligible was truly amazing.

I am not opposed to food stamps in general, but I think that, especially with gov't supplied hand in hand, it's not unreasonable to limit food stamp purchases to more healthy type foods. And while agreeing to what is healthy, and what is not is a hard thing, generally eliminating high sugar/fat items would be a good start.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You really think these purchases are being made in grocery stores? Better yet, you really think all these junk food people are within safe walking distance to a grocery store?

I wasn't really planning to list every possible outlet, but having lived in two places with very high food stamp (or whatever its called these days) eligibility & use, the majority of transactions would seem likely to take place in stores that are at least franchise operations with standardized transaction systems, i.e. similar to grocery stores.

Taking c-stores as a highly likely junk food outlet, I'm not sure there's even a non-chain convenience (type) store left in all of Athens. The dominant franchise in our lowest income neighborhoods is Golden Gallon (kind of what they're known for in some towns, being where no one else wants to be & charging double for everything), followed by Shell, with BP probably third. All of them scan everything at the register, just like Kroger. And yeah, these are the walking distance places from the housing projects, not to mention having a bus stop within a stone's throw of the door.

Ditto the small town I lived before, where roughly half the population was on some form of "welfare" or another. Only two grocery stores in town, both with modern check out systems. Half dozen c-stores, all but one on modern(ish) check out equipment and it was probably 3rd or 4th in sales, no better than third with the food stamp crowd (it was two blocks from my house & I knew the owner, hard not to be able to gauge the clientele, y'know).

I'm sure there's some areas where it isn't quite as true - some of the ethnic neighborhoods in parts of Atlanta come to mind as examples - but the ethnic aspect is relevant here not because of the customers or any correlation between ethnicity/food stamps but because they're among the few places I know in Georgia where any independently owned corner store/c-store/ neighborhood grocer operations still exist. Most are long since out of business.

[dawgfan]

And the ethical & moral bankruptcy of those who find "surrender" as an option is a bigger drain than either.
I may regret asking, but what exactly would be the "ethical & moral bankruptcy" of legalizing marijuana? Was it ethically & morally bankrupt of this country to repeal prohibition of alcohol? Is it ethically & morally bankrupt to allow consumption of caffeine & nicotine? What about other naturally occurring psychoactive substances that are not regulated and found in foods, such as Theobromine or Theophylline (found in chocolate & tea among others)?

You seem to be a black & white rather than shades of gray person Jon - how do you determine what is an ethical and moral drug vs. one that is not?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I may regret asking, but what exactly would be the "ethical & moral bankruptcy" of legalizing marijuana? You seem to be a black & white rather than shades of gray person Jon - how do you determine what is an ethical and moral drug vs. one that is not?

My credentials as an unapologetic authoritarian I believe are established enough here to be stipulated at this point I think.

I've got nothing but contempt for illegal users ... and in the U.S. that covers the vast majority of them. It's a complete disregard for the rule of law & order, a primary basis for anything resembling a civilized society. But to abandon that principal because there's been a lack of courage in enforcing those laws (by failing to put remotely adequate teeth in them) is the more disturbing bankruptcy I was referring to up the thread.

[Flasch186]

If Noop is correct, I believe that those who pass would get reimbursed. How often will they be drug test? Will it be random?

Personally, I think welfare needs to broken down and reformed.

but to get tested you already have to have the dough....

[dawgfan]

My credentials as an unapologetic authoritarian I believe are established enough here to be stipulated at this point I think.

I've got nothing but contempt for illegal users ... and in the U.S. that covers the vast majority of them. It's a complete disregard for the rule of law & order, a primary basis for anything resembling a civilized society. But to abandon that principal because there's been a lack of courage in enforcing those laws (by failing to put remotely adequate teeth in them) is the more disturbing bankruptcy I was referring to up the thread.
No, I get that part. But if (or more likely when) marijuana usage is legalized in this country, how is that "ethical & moral bankruptcy"? Why exactly should marijuana be illegal but other drugs not?

[CU Tiger]

No, I get that part. But if (or more likely when) marijuana usage is legalized in this country, how is that "ethical & moral bankruptcy"? Why exactly should marijuana be illegal but other drugs not?

I'm enjoying the read. Lets not destroy it with this argument, please.

While this is probaly the one issue I disagree vehemenently (sp) with Jon on, its been long establishd that if coffee were outlawed tomorrow Jon would probably kill himself to solve the internal conflict. His view (as I understand it) is that if it is illgal today it is off limits, if tomorrow it is legalized he has carte blanche to smoke a fatty with whomever he chooses.

The problem with his argument from my point of view is it starts with the presumption that those in charge of making laws are more inteligent/better qualified than I to make decisions for me. While I wish that were the case, with rigged ballot boxes, manipulated poles and stats, and judges on the take I dont trust any of the bastards. To the point that if a speed limit says 55 I drive 56 to make sure someone doesnt run into my ass.

IOW he doesnt consider the why, only that it is.

At least thats my take.

[dawgfan]

His view (as I understand it) is that if it is illgal today it is off limits, if tomorrow it is legalized he has carte blanche to smoke a fatty with whomever he chooses.
See, that's what's confusing me. Based off his reply to me, one would think that's his view; but the initial post that I was responding to suggests that he thinks it would be an ethical and moral failure to legalize it, hence my confusion (and my question).

Didn't mean to sidetrack the thread, just genuinely curious what Jon's thinking is on this particular aspect.

[britrock88]

All it means, I think, is that his personal ethical/moral code is tied to legality. That may strike someone oddly (since that code would vary on geography, time, and other circumstances), but it's not crazy to think like that -- it'll keep you out of trouble.

[dawgfan]

All it means, I think, is that his personal ethical/moral code is tied to legality. That may strike someone oddly (since that code would vary on geography, time, and other circumstances), but it's not crazy to think like that -- it'll keep you out of trouble.
I agree that tends to be how he thinks, but the wording suggests more than that; if it were strictly a question of following whatever is currently legal, then it would follow that the statement would be that it's an ethical & moral failure to take illegal drugs. Instead, the statement seemed to imply that it would be an ethical and moral failure to change the legal status of those drugs.

[britrock88]

I agree that tends to be how he thinks, but the wording suggests more than that; if it were strictly a question of following whatever is currently legal, then it would follow that the statement would be that it's an ethical & moral failure to take illegal drugs. Instead, the statement seemed to imply that it would be an ethical and moral failure to change the legal status of those drugs.

IMO, that perception of failure would derive from the ethical/moral view he has based on the current ruleset.

[RendeR]

Jon's initial statement perports a personal belief that drugs are unethical and immoral.

It states that he believes to legalize drugs in any way is to "surrender" in my aforementioned "war on drugs".


If his entire argument is truly about legality, then I would suggest he is little more than a hypocrite, because no human being leads a perfect life in relation to the law. We speed, we jaywalk on occasion, we cheat and steal. We, as human beings, are flawed and have weakness.

Jon basing his stance purely on legality would be saying he is above all of that and carries none of the inherent human failures. In which case I will simply laugh at him and ignore his stances on almost everything from now on.


However. I tend to believe that Jon's positions are more philosophically/spiritually motivated. And while I disagree with him on most things at least I can respect his right to believe as he does if this is the case.

For myself, its quite obvious that the war on drugs was lost 20 years ago. It is not a war that can be won, no matter how much money, time, and lives you want to throw at it.

It is not surrendering. We're not actually fighting anymore. We're hiding from reality. The United States Anti-drug systems are like a Japanese soldier from 1942 still living in his bunker on a forgotten island in the south pacific. He's there, he still thinks he's fighting the good fight, but the rest of the universe just went on by.

Those funds, officers, all of it. Can be better used in other places. Stop wasting my tax dollars swinging at shadows in dark alleys. The shadows kicked your ass long ago.

[Jon]

First results are in from the Florida drug testing:

only 2% tested positive........

nominal savings to Florida.....which may go away when considering staff hours.

huge gain for the company that did the test--and the trust in the name of Governor Rick Scott's wife that has some shares still.

Link:

hxxp: www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

[Ksyrup]

Bud Selig says 45% of them would have tested positive if not for the drug testing they implemented.

[JonInMiddleGA]

First results are in from the Florida drug testing:
only 2% tested positive........

And how many didn't apply because they knew they'd fail?

The program is also far too limited in scope (only covers TANF) to provide the sort of savings that could be realized by applying it to all benefits - state & federal.

[JPhillips]

And how many didn't apply because they knew they'd fail?

The program is also far too limited in scope (only covers TANF) to provide the sort of savings that could be realized by applying it to all benefits - state & federal.

Yep. If this was applied to people who take the mortgage deduction, student loans and government contracts it would nab more people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yep. If this was applied to people who take the mortgage deduction, student loans and government contracts it would nab more people.

{stares unblinkingly}

When you're ready for me to throw in the part about how all information obtained should be turned over to law enforcement for further investigation, just let me know.

[SteveMax58]

Yep. If this was applied to people who take the mortgage deduction, student loans and government contracts it would nab more people.

While I think the testing is a waste of resources and just becomes another mini-boondoggle for whoever provides the testing services...I think there is a distinction between having a government benefit & requesting a government benefit.

The difference I believe is that I did not actively pursue (or request) a mortgage interest benefit whereas it takes action to pursue food stamps or student loans benefits. And I don't think filling in a tax return form counts as a request for assistance.

As for the government contractors...I'm sure there are exceptions depending on the scope & contract but to my knowledge, the government does stipulate that you must be a drug-free workplace. This of course, like most government requirements, is not overly difficult to adhere to for a drug using employee/contractor, but it does have base level requirements and part of that includes pre-employment drug screening as well as the ability to ask somebody to go pee in a cup if suspected of drug use (which could include something as minor as slipping and falling down).

So, I guess all I'm saying is that the logic behind drug testing isn't inconsistent to me. A waste because everything government tries to administrate is pretty darn inefficient? Certainly agreed.

[JPhillips]

I just think it should be recognized that most people get some sort of government benefit. It's easy to say "they" should have obstacles, but what if those same obstacles apply to you?

Now Jon would be happy with everyone being tested, and that's at least less discriminatory than Florida's plan.

[SteveMax58]

I just hold to the logic that any benefit I have is available to others. And any benefit I personally request is going to have requirements to be met.

I just think this is an easy redmeat political topic for Rick Scott to latch onto so he can switch the focus from how little he has done to help the FL economy or housing market.

[thesloppy]

And how many didn't apply because they knew they'd fail?


"another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified."

Altogether, that's a whopping 4%.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified." Altogether, that's a whopping 4%.

4% + those who won't apply because of the long overdue new rules, a number that can't be captured in a tiny test in about a month.

Let's be honest though, I've got no problem with this if it's even remotely close to revenue neutral.

[stevew]

I don't really care about this specific program.

But when like a million births per year are done on Medicaid and an alarming amount of kids are on food assistance, something needs to change in this country.

[thesloppy]

Are these folks being refused benefits for testing positive for alcohol or cigarettes? As ridiculous as that sounds, I'm sure the number of welfare recipients abusing alcohol far outweighs those abusing illegal drugs, and smoking is an incredible waste of resources with no benefit, that has the potential to exponentially increase the recipient's healthcare costs. I'm not a big fan of the testing plan in the first place, but it seems like a pretty mixed message if you can swill a fifth of whiskey every day, burn through three packs of smokes, and you're cool in the state's eyes.

Really, the point I take from these results is the critical flaw in this process that (apparently) very few non-users realize: it's not hard to pass a drug test. Many hard drugs leave your system in the course of a few hours. There are a wide variety of masking agents available for purchase from your local "tobacco shop", with variable success rates. There are a wide variety of synthetic "substitution" products that have near 100% success rates.

According to these results, either welfare recipients aren't using drugs even at a rate that is comparable to the national average, or an incredibly high percentage of those that are using drugs know how to beat the test. Either way, it seems like a pretty inefficient way to spend state monies, in tough times.

[dawgfan]

Either way, it seems like a pretty inefficient way to spend state monies, in tough times.
And that's something that social progressives and fiscal conservatives should be able to agree on. Sure wish that branch of the Republican party hadn't gone extinct...

[JediKooter]

And that's something that social progressives and fiscal conservatives should be able to agree on. Sure wish that branch of the Republican party hadn't gone extinct...

I don't think they're extinct. I think they are hiding from the tea party. The tea party are like the Terminators, they don't feel any compassion, they have no remorse, there's no bargaining with them, there's no reasoning with them.

[RendeR]

Thats because they're fucking nutcases. Most people described the way you just did the Tea Party are institutionalized.

[thesloppy]

I've come to a kind of "chicken or the egg" understanding of the Tea Party. I think that "this stuff is MINE and I gotta protect it" is a lot more prevalent in the whole world today, but the Tea Party is just the most obvious about their actions and motivations. I see just as many of my supposedly 'liberal' friends pulling the same kind of "circle your wagons" mentality in terms of finances, and being just as rabidly stubborn or exclusionary in their social politics. I think that the Tea Party is just another result of that (maybe post 9/11?) paranoid attitude that has affected our entire country in recent years, rather than a fount/source of crazy representing only a few wackos.

As much as I don't particularly care for the specifics of what the Tea Party represents, it also makes me uncomfortable to see them repeatedly presented as out-of-touch nuts, because at their roots I don't think they're that far removed from any other American who's just been simply scared by the financial/geopolitical uncertainties of the last decade. I don't think it does the rest of us, on either side, any good to pretend they're the only crazy ones, and then be just as rabid about wishing them away.

...all of which is neither hear nor there, and doesn't have much to do with the thread at hand. Man, I am turning into my rambling ol' grandad.

[JediKooter]

It's their absolutist, racist, historical revisionist, constitutional revisionist, gay hating agenda that is the problem. They get the brunt of the vitriol because of how much they have forced themselves out into the public eye. They wanted the publicity, they got it. What comes with publicity, always has the potential for backlash. For the lines that they've drawn in the sand, they deserve the ridicule that they've brought upon themselves. You speak like a crazy person, you deserve to be treated like a crazy person. It's that simple to me. And that treatment goes for any group or person regardless of their political leanings.

Are there other groups from the other side of the political spectrum? You bet. The big difference is, they don't have a candidate trying to win a major party presidential nomination. The other difference is, I can't name one other group other than the tea party, from any side of the political fence, that is like the tea party. Granted, I'm not one to really keep up with fringe groups unless they've been getting media attention.

Their latest claim to fame: "Hey, at least we're not as disliked as NAMBLA". Sane people would see a problem with that and make the needed changes.

[thesloppy]

That's a fair point. While I've met equally loony individuals of every and any stripe, none of them have mobilized their combined lunacy/paranoia. I still stand by the assertion that the response/reaction to the Tea Party is nearly as paranoid and divisively angry as the Tea Party themselves, and that nothing good can come from continually fostering that kind of political/social conflict. That said, I'm certainly not scolding anyone for not wanting/being able to ignore the Tea Party, or their political nemesis of choice.....easier said than done, and all that....and I don't wanna suggest that folks shouldn't be put on the hook for their own idiocy....it's just disheartening to see that the only answer to people getting angry and scared, is getting angry and scared. Considering history, I guess I can't really claim to be surprised, but perhaps I can still maintain a little shock that political discourse actually seems to be getting worse and less sophisticated as our society advances

[JediKooter]

I've got to give them credit though. They got noticed and have outlasted their 15 minutes of fame, while a lot of other groups lose steam or just fade away.

Me personally though, sometimes you can't really coddle groups like the tea party with niceties. Sometimes good old fashioned uncensored criticism and mockery is the answer. There's just certain groups that have earned the right to sit down and have a civil conversation with and there's some that have not. :)

Well, hopefully, some well thought out, factually based, sane arguments against groups like the tea party is what prevails. Unfortunately, they tend to get drowned out by the more sensational stuff and that's what gets picked up by the media.

[SteveMax58]

Me personally though, sometimes you can't really coddle groups like the tea party with niceties. Sometimes good old fashioned uncensored criticism and mockery is the answer. There's just certain groups that have earned the right to sit down and have a civil conversation with and there's some that have not. :)

I've always viewed the Tea Party as that uncle (cousin,brother-in-law,neighbor...take your pick) who, while brilliantly succinct in his opinions at times, is also a bit off. He engages you with his view of stupid crap the government does...which you agree with. Then notes all of the waste going on at the DMV...which you have seen as well. Then comments how we shouldn't even be fighting wars for people who don't want us there...and you nod in agreement. Then drops the hammer by stating we should nuke the middle east or something...and you are so disappointed that you actually agreed with the rest of his observations that you now must re-evaluate all of your personal opinions as you couldn't possibly hold the same opinion as the crazy guy.

[RainMaker]

I don't really care about this specific program.

But when like a million births per year are done on Medicaid and an alarming amount of kids are on food assistance, something needs to change in this country.
More birth control. I'd seriously be fine with a government program that provides free birth control to whoever wants it. I'd have buckets of condoms at schools and allow girls easy access to the pill and other methods. I'd even stock the morning after pill at the Nurse's office in school.

You're right that this doesn't fix the problem, having people who can't afford kids having less is.

[JPhillips]

And getting people jobs.

[tarcone]

In Missouri you can attend public school without being vaccinated. You just need a waiver. Then you can attend.

I was talking to our resource officer today and he was telling of a students aunt who has him in foster care. She has to be tested for drugs regularly. Like twice a week.
This kids family is rough. His dad and 2 brothers are in prison because of meth. One of his older sisters looks older them me, she is about 17, because of meth.

Anyway, I digress. Missouri just added this law to their books. If someone fails or refuses a test they lose benefits for 3 years. Programs to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

New Missouri law requires drug tests for welfare recipients | The Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/13/new-missouri-law-requires-drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/)

[tarcone]

Here is another link. It goes into a little more detail.

Nixon signs bill requiring drug tests for Missouri welfare recipients (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/article_a0315994-accf-11e0-99bf-0019bb30f31a.html)

Here is part of the article that seemed pertinent to this discussion.

Under the bill, if there is reasonable suspicion that someone receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program is using illegal drugs, a drug test can be ordered. If the person refuses, or if the test comes back positive, the state would cut off assistance for three years. That person could still receive benefits if they enroll in a treatment program and do not test positive for drugs for six months.

Children would continue to receive welfare payments through a third party if a parent became ineligible.

[JPhillips]

The big difference is the reasonable suspicion clause. The FL law just blanket tests everyone.