Florida governor orders random drug testing of state employees and welfare recipients

[Darwin333]

I don't think you should have to take a drug test for most jobs either.

Which jobs do you think should be included in the testing?

 

[Darwin333]

Incorrect. You do not rescind your Civil Rights in order to collect Government Assistance.

So you think that the .gov should not be allowed to require very personal financial data either?

 

[CitizenKain]

Dumbshit, active duty already gets drug tested, randomly, and vets that draw benefits probably do too, and as mentioned above they already earned their money.

So? They are taking my money, so I should get to decide if the lifestyle they are living is appropriate.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Fail. Liberals are asking to keep rights, I don't think people on welfare should be buying drugs anymore than you do, But I also believe they have the same rights as anyone else, including you.

I also find it odd that the Gov just happens to own drug testing facilities.

I am fine with that...as long as I no longer have to prove I am even qualified for welfare. I don't want the .gov asking me for me income or any type of eligibility (or proof of no income). I just want to receive my free money. What right does the .gov have to ask if I am qualified to be on welfare? I shouldn't have to prove that to them.

 

[Jadow]

If the state contracts the drug testing out and does it right, the cost will only be about $25 per test.

Not sure what the welfare payment per person is. Say it's $1000 per month.

They just need 1 positive out of every 40 tests to break even, that's about a 2.5% hit rate.

They may not get that high, but I bet they do, could even be around 5% or more since welfare recipients may be a demographic more likely to do drugs.

I am all for this, they should do nicotine testing too. I am not going to tell a person if they should or should not smoke, but if you're getting a free handout of my tax payer dollars, then you don't smoke. If smoking is that important to you, don't take the money.

 

[wuliheron]

I don't think anyone is going to deny that there are many other problems that can be solved, that doesn't make this measure to save money any less valid.

I'm not arguing that it is invalid, merely that reactionary politics often target things that don't produce much in the way of results. It can be just so much smoke and mirrors that gets the public's attention, while their tax dollars are largely stolen or wasted elsewhere.

 

[PeshakJang]

I'm not arguing that it is invalid, merely that reactionary politics often target things that don't produce much in the way of results. It can be just so much smoke and mirrors that gets the public's attention, while their tax dollars are largely stolen or wasted elsewhere.

You mean like welfare? I agree.

 

[CallMeJoe]

I didn't say all military retirees, I said vets drawing benefits, and I meant to say some. And I really don't care if calling someone that refers to vets and our military as leeches a dumbshit offends you, or makes you opinion of what I said any lessened, I couldn't care less.

If there are any vets drawing benefits subject to drug testing it is such an insignificantly small number as to be non-existent.

As to CitizenKain's "leeches" post, buy yourself as sarcasm meter.

Finally, re the "dumbshit" comment, don't worry. It couldn't possibly lower my opinion of you or of your posts.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If it's about legal drugs, privacy to do what is legal is your own business, if it's about illegal drugs, test EVERYONE randomly, if you want to live in a "free" society, you have to submit, the "small government" has spoken.

 

[piasabird]

Mandatorty yearly drug tests for everyone.

 

[PeshakJang]

Mandatory weekly drug tests for everyone in congress.

Improved.

 

[xj0hnx]

Finally, re the "dumbshit" comment, don't worry. It couldn't possibly lower my opinion of you or of your posts.

Of course not, you'd have to raise up to that point.

 

[xj0hnx]

So? They are taking my money, so I should get to decide if the lifestyle they are living is appropriate.

Because you're not mentally competent enough to follow, the difference is they WORK for their money, and already DO get drug tested, they didn't come to the government asking to get taxpayer money to support their lives. I know the concept might befuddle you at first, but if you try real hard you might get it.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

better idea....eliminate or severely cut welfare benefits.

 

[xj0hnx]

If it's about legal drugs, privacy to do what is legal is your own business, if it's about illegal drugs, test EVERYONE randomly, if you want to live in a "free" society, you have to submit, the "small government" has spoken.

Why test everyone? Everyone isn't asking society to support them. It's pretty simple really, if you want the people to pay your rent, then you should be able to show the people that you don't already have the money, and or, are responsible instead of choosing to spend it on something else, same as when they check your bank account records when you get welfare.

 

[manimal]

Has anyone answered yet how this is small government?

 

[matt0611]

Has anyone answered yet how this is small government?

How is welfare small government?
Its not.

But as long as we have it, people want to put strings on their hard earned money thats taken from them by force. You're the one who wants welfare I'm guessing, the rest of us are just setting the rules.

Is testing of military small government? No, but it still should be done.

 

[manimal]

How is welfare small government?
Its not.

But as long as we have it, people want to put strings on their hard earned money thats taken from them by force. You're the one who wants welfare I'm guessing, the rest of us are just setting the rules.

Is testing of military small government? No, but it still should be done.

not applicable. One is an established program another is a new spending bill that nobody voted on...


nice try though...

btw when did Rick-Im gonna screw medicare for billions-Scott talk about doing this in his campaign?

 

[matt0611]

not applicable. One is an established program another is a new spending bill that nobody voted on...


nice try though...

btw when did Rick-Im gonna screw medicare for billions-Scott talk about doing this in his campaign?

Nice try with what?

You want welfare and as long as theres welfare I want strings attached to it.

You want big government and I want measures in place to make sure peoples hard earned money its not being abused.

Cut welfare to make up for the loss (if any) for all I care.

You want small government? Get rid of welfare.
Until then, drug test the recipients.

 

[xj0hnx]

not applicable. One is an established program another is a new spending bill that nobody voted on...


nice try though...

btw when did Rick-Im gonna screw medicare for billions-Scott talk about doing this in his campaign?

It's always cute watching big government libs pretend they all of a sudden care about spending.

 

[thraashman]

It's always cute watching big government libs pretend they all of a sudden care about spending.

Actually, most liberals very much are concerned about spending. However we don't think that fucking over the poor while selling the government to the rich is a good idea. The main reason anyone is pissed about this is that it adds costs to the government and may very likely not add any benefits. In addition from the sounds of it the governor may personally benefit financially from this bill which would be improper for an elected official. Welfare may not be perfect, but most people who are on it are not living in some amazing luxury financed by the state because they're too lazy to get by on their own. Most people on welfare have no other choice.

If it were up to Republicans in here a woman who had an unwanted child, even if she were raped, wouldn't be able to get an abortion, wouldn't benefit from any form of government assistance for prenatal care, would have trouble finding adoptive parents because government adoption programs would be underfunded, if unable to properly care for the child wouldn't be able to get government welfare assistance, and the child wouldn't have healthcare because government funded healthcare of any kind would be gone. So the child would be raised poor, hungry, and sick in a bad neighborhood because there'd be fewer police because public servants would all have to take pay cuts, which would also mean the child would have lousy or no teachers. Then when the child eventually dies of street violence, starvation, or sickness ... those Republicans would rave about how they're "pro-life".

 

[theeedude]

It's not about achieving anything or saving money. It's about harassing state employees and the poor.

 

[Train]

Actually, most liberals very much are concerned about spending. However we don't think that fucking over the poor...

Woah stop right there.

How is this fucking over the poor? It's only fucking them if they are doing illegal drugs while soaking up govt money.

If they lose their bennies it's because they FUCKED THEMSELVES.

If they are willing to do drugs and risk losing their benifits, then obviously welfare was not that important to them.

 

[OCGuy]

Good.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Why test everyone? Everyone isn't asking society to support them. It's pretty simple really, if you want the people to pay your rent, then you should be able to show the people that you don't already have the money, and or, are responsible instead of choosing to spend it on something else, same as when they check your bank account records when you get welfare.

Why not, is it less illegal if someone who isn't on state welfare if they do it or is it more illegal?

If you want to live in a society of laws, the least you could do is to prove that you follow the law by submitting to random drug tests.

See how that works, everyone who benefits from living in a society needs to follow the laws set in that society, it doesn't matter where they get their money from, except if you are a fascist and want to differentiate between classes of people, but i'm sure you are no fascist, right?

You can't win a discussion like this because everyone is essentially equal, regardless of where they get their money, not unless you want to institute fascism as law, that also means taking away rights for some people, you know, "undesirables", if you are fine with that then just move to Pakistan, they do that all the time.