Florida to drug test welfare recipients

I'm with Barkey on this. If doing drugs bars you from employment and a means of taking care of yoruself, I fail to see why doing drugs should be overlooked if other people are picking up the tab and taking care of you.

Staying off of illegal drugs isn't too much to ask, is it? I don't think so. Thus I have no sympathy - none - for those who know better, get popped and cry about losing their entitlement payments. The simple solution is to not to use illegal drugs.

You are welcome to disagree with me all you like, doesn't matter to me any.

The problem is will this get people off said drugs, or will it just mean they turn to more crime instead?

Either choice there may be a price to be paid.

It's not just "Oh well, we won't give you welfare" and then the drugs suddenly become less appealing.

edited 21st Jul '11 6:59:20 PM by blueharp

My above position stated, I recognize the dire need to get people off of illegal drugs. I think a fair compromise would be an amnesty program, and/or a treatment program that one can check into that will, provided that they make an honest effort to clean up, will prevent their welfare services from being taken away. Thus, those who are still in their right mind can come forward and say "I have a problem can I please get some help" and get that help. Those who refuse to come forward and get caught, pay the price.

Would that work?

@Tom: It has such a huge recidivism rate because treating one junkie's drug habit doesnt fix the real problems. IE, their home liofe or their neighborhood.

It doesnt do much goddamn good to get a heroin junkie off Heroin if afterwards he goes home to a poor as fuck neighborhood where his family is a broken home and he doesnt have any prospects for improving his life in any meaningful way. Nor does it change the fact a lot of his friends probably are also drug users, who probably arent off the stuff, and the human mind likes sticking to habits.

edited 21st Jul '11 7:03:12 PM by Midgetsnowman

^^^

Then you weed those people out as you go.

edited 21st Jul '11 7:03:53 PM by Barkey

I agree with Barkey and pvtnum 11. Getting wasted is a luxury; if you're willing to pay for it with your own labor, go for it. If someone else is picking up the tab and requires you to stay sober, fucking stay sober. You're getting free money, don't complain...and don't, for the love of God, drag the Constitution into it. There is no passage in there anywhere that guarantees an addict's right to get free cash.

That said, addiction is a problem and the framework America has for dealing with it sucks donkey dick.

^^^ Then it doesn't help given that welfare never promotes a healthy home and lifestyle regardless of how much you pay out or structure it.

edited 21st Jul '11 7:05:20 PM by MajorTom

@Tom: That's because guess what? Theres no way in hell either party would ever get the support necessary to come up with a more comprehensive way to improve badly damaged communities.

Most communities with a big drug problem have much more systemic issues like community-wide poverty, gangs, and near-apathetic support from local government and Police until it actually affects the middle or upper class somehow. (like how cops in LA never cracked down on street gangs until a white middle class graphic designer got shot in the nice part of town because she was between two gang rivals unknowingly)

The simple, blunt problem with stopping drug use in poor communities is simple. Nobody gives a shit about the poor unless it somehow affects them. otherwise theyre like the homeless guy begging on the street corner. You ignore them or actively think hateful thoughts about them. All this legislation will do is put even more unfair blame on the victims as an excuse to shit another load on the poor for giggles and amusement.

edited 21st Jul '11 7:11:30 PM by Midgetsnowman

@Tom: Yes, because forcing families to starve in the streets is so much better.

^ It weeds out the druggies and the criminals. They either die or get locked up.

@Tom: No, all it'll do is outright destroy communities that already teeter into collapse. And then when gang violence gets even worse, the rich old senile fuckwads that make up the majority of Florida's population will whine about crime rates as the idiot rich old fogies get robbed at gunpoint by starving people.

And I won't give a damn. If they want to punish the victim instead of trying for a real solution, then they deserve to die.

edited 21st Jul '11 7:13:35 PM by Midgetsnowman

Florida has some good CCW laws.

Frankly, Given their usual law ideas, I couldnt be bothered to care if the majority of Florida fell into the ocean and drowned.

They seem to constantly enjoy electing leaders who are absolutely convinced jesus and beating the poor against a wall with blackjacks will certainly fix everything.

edited 21st Jul '11 7:19:53 PM by Midgetsnowman

Just draws them into the killzone.. You won't get off drugs and can't hold a job? Fine. The cops will eventually nail your ass, or a victim with a CCW will.

Sheesh, midget, gettin' a bit incensed here, aren't we?

Still, way I see it first time a welfare recipient pops a test, a warning. Second time, another warning with suggestion of rehab. Third time, force em into rehab.

Fourth time, no more checks.

Thank you for reminding me why I decided to stay out of OTC.

Ammo is still cheap.*

I'm still trying to figure out how people can be on food-stamps and yet manage to drive an Escalade.

edited 21st Jul '11 7:22:54 PM by Kino

@Barkey: the whole thing reeks of "we're going to completely ignore the actual causes of drug use and force people up against a wall for laughs" though.

@Mark: I get incensed when people imply its somehow better for people to starve in the streets than pay them government money becauise they have a drug habit. Especially given a lot of people dont have drug habits purely out of choice so much as because of circumstances.

edited 21st Jul '11 7:24:57 PM by Midgetsnowman

My main concern is that unless the tests are 100% reliable people may be denied welfare when they have done nothing wrong. Does anyone know the odds of getting a false positive on them?

^^

It means you have a god damn choice, and it's a simple one. Get paid welfare money while you try to get yourself back on track, get checked into rehab when you pop positive, or starve.

It's a hard choice for an addict, but it's not a complex one, it's pretty damn simple. At the end of the day you have choices and consequences, I'd rather have them laid bare with a policy that draws the goddamn line for a change than the crippling damage caused by staying halfway between two solutions.

^

Pretty low. I get drug tested a few times a year, as all people with my job do. Never seen a false positive.

edited 21st Jul '11 7:26:57 PM by Barkey

Depends on the test.

I'd prefer a solution in the other direction, but the chances of getting Republicans to ever agree to any sort of comprehensive effort to fix dying communities is about as likely as pigs flying.

edited 21st Jul '11 7:27:35 PM by Midgetsnowman

I'm with Barkey on this. If an addict's habit has driven them to where welfare is the only thing stopping them from starving, they've made some bad calls and need to face the consequences.

I really don't see what the issues is. Individuals want money right? Then they shouldn't complain if there are strings attached; reasonable strings in this case. Stay clean, get help if you fall off the wagon, and get a job; keep that up and you'll get your check. You fuck up and your ass gets booted to the curb.

^^^

I'm not even a Republican and I'm not willing to saddle the expense involved.

With the exception of better job placement devices, that is.

edited 21st Jul '11 7:30:43 PM by Barkey

Guess I have to agree to disagree on that point. All laws like this do for me is remind me so much why I hate lawmakers immensely sometimes. if it eas easy to get help when you fall off the wagon for most people, they probably might. Unfortunately, that whole Drugs usually just lands you in jail for decades or theres no help available thing tends to fuck that over.

So I suppose, fuck the poor. At least we can laugh at their corpses when theyre dead.

edited 21st Jul '11 7:32:25 PM by Midgetsnowman