Judge blocks Fla.'s new welfare drug testing law

[OutHouse]

Don't bother trying to explain chemistry to idiots. Not being able to understand it is what makes them idiots.

alcohol and metabolites --> infinitely soluble in water --> passes very quickly
cocaine HCL and metabolites --> water soluble --> passes in 2-3 days
amphetamine HCL and metabolites --> water soluble --> passes in less than 1 week
marijuana --> extremely low water solubility, high fat solubility --> stays in you for weeks


One would argue that the point of drug testing for things that pass quickly is that it gives an indication of how pathetic someone really is. If you can't even stop cocaine for 3 days, then god help you.

was that really necessary?

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

You shouldn't have to pass a drug test to get a job. You Americans just love telling people what to in their private lives.

If someone wants to get high on there own time then just leave them be ffs.

The only jobs here that require drug tests are jobs that involve heavy machinery, or whatever. And they're usually on day tests.

If my work tested for drugs they would loose a lot of good people.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

why?

Because he collects and is stoned?

 

[boomerang]

After spending a Trillion dollars killing people in Iraq and a Billion dollars killing people in Libya. I want my tax dollars feeding, giving health care, and educating citizens of the US.

Change your statement as I have bolded it and for the first time ever we'll be in agreement.

 

[(sic)Klown12]

My only problem with this is that I'm afraid it'll end up costing tax payers more money in the long run. Testing that amount of people(which is only going to rise as the population grows) is going to be expensive, and I'm not sure it'll catch enough people to to make up for the cost. Has anyone put out a cost/benefit analysis of this program out yet?

 

[MovingTarget]

First time I've seen this one.

Yep. I understand that sentiment, but why should the average person have to pass a drug test to get and/or keep a job? (Example: A crane operator vs.s a Walmart cashier) I'm as anti-drug in my personal stance as anyone, but policy-wise, unless that job requires the use of heavy machinery or other hazardous conditions/materials, then it seems like an unnecessary invasion of privacy.

 

[shira]

That is part of the problem, our society has cultivated a group of people who think they are entitled to welfare.

After Hurricane Andrew passed through Florida, there were stories of people sitting in their front yards waiting for the government to clean up the mess. It was reported that one family had been on welfare for 3 generations.

My personal opinion, welfare has caused more problems then it fixed. Instead of giving people a helping hand, it has become a crutch.

I agree that there are probably many people who have the wherewithal to become financially independent but aren't motivated to do so because they're able to get by on welfare plus some minimal outside earnings. But there are also probably many people who despite their best efforts simply cannot make a living wage to support themselves or their families.

The problem is: How does society distinguish these two groups as a matter of policy - to determine whether a person or family should remain eligible - without being unacceptably intrusive on the privacy of welfare recipients? It's not an easy question.

 

[Mursilis]

You shouldn't have to pass a drug test to get a job. You Americans just love telling people what to in their private lives.

Why do people think every American is drug-tested for every job? I've had a ton of jobs, and only took a drug test to enter the military. I've had at least two federal jobs, and never took a drug test for either.

 

[Mursilis]

The problem is: How does society distinguish these two groups as a matter of policy - to determine whether a person or family should remain eligible - without being unacceptably intrusive on the privacy of welfare recipients? It's not an easy question.

That's why charity should be administered on a local level - it's easier to spot the cheats.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You shouldn't have to pass a drug test to get a job. You Americans just love telling people what to in their private lives.

If someone wants to get high on there own time then just leave them be ffs.

The only jobs here that require drug tests are jobs that involve heavy machinery, or whatever. And they're usually on day tests.

If my work tested for drugs they would loose a lot of good people.

Funny, I had to get drug tested and my company had to prove it had a drug testing program in order to work at Royal Dutch Shell refinery in Australia (Geelong).

 

[dmcowen674]

I fail to see how requiring people to be drug tested in order to receive a welfare check is unconstitutional.

Show me where in the Constitution does it say you have to have a drug test to receive welfare?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Show me where in the Constitution does it say you have to have a drug test to receive welfare?

Show me where in the Constitution that is says people are entitled to welfare in the first place.

 

[ShawnD1]

Show me where in the Constitution does it say you have to have a drug test to receive welfare?

One could argue that the random searching mentioned in the constitution only applies to stuff where you can't opt out (police can't randomly search where you live). Welfare is not quite the same thing. Welfare is something you subject yourself to. The government doesn't come to you; you go to them. That would change the rules entirely. If testing welfare people for drugs is unconstitutional, then it should also be unconstitutional to drug test employees. Of course that would only apply to government. Private industry doing drug testing would need to be covered by other laws.

Also, drugs were legal back when the constitution was written. At the time, it was inconceivable that you could tell a person what they can or cannot put in their own body. The only way they could make marijuana illegal was to pass a tax act with circular logic - you need this paper to grow it but you need to show what you have in order to get the paper. There's no way you can possibly win. Outright banning of drugs with a simple wave of the hand wasn't possible until the 1960s.

 

[jstern01]

Show me where in the Constitution that is says people are entitled to welfare in the first place.

Here ya go, bold text for emphasis.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Argue what you will, but since 1937 that clause has allow for massive expansion of the Government in providing for the less well off.

 

[hal2kilo]

THC doesn't stay in your urine for a month. Sorry, but your whole argument is based on a bs statement. Even then, you are defending this decision by saying that is unfairly singles out one set of ILLEGAL drug users from the rest of ILLEGAL drug users. That makes perfect sense, for an idiot.

You continue to repeat this misinformation. Heavy users can test positive for up to 3 months.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_does_marijuana_stay_in_your_system

 

[ShawnD1]

Here ya go, bold text for emphasis.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Capitalizing a word means it has a definition explained somewhere else in the document. What is the government's definition of Welfare in this case? We can't go by the dictionary definition since dictionary stuff usually does not apply. In one document I read over, the contract defined Quality with a very long explanation that had specific numbers.

 

[Modelworks]

The only time I have ever been drug tested was for the military. I can understand its use there. I don't want the guy next to me with a gun freaking out in a fire fight because he suddenly thought everyone was a demon.

The sole problem with welfare is children. You can deny adults food or money but you cannot deny children. If you do not support the parents then you have to remove the children from the home and that isn't something society wants to do nor should it have to.

The solution is to solve the problem not the symptoms. You have to make the parents not want welfare and not because it is difficult to get or because it doesn't fulfill their needs. The only way to solve the welfare issue is by changing the views of the parents to not want to be on welfare because they can do better and should want better. You have to change the mentality that welfare is something okay to be on and you do that through showing people better options, not by slapping hands and making rules for anyone that wants to go on welfare. That is the same approach they tried with drugs, make it hard to get , difficult to obtain and people will not do it. The reality is the thing that works best for drug control is making it socially unacceptable as something that hurts you not helps you and showing people caught up in it that there are alternatives.

Drugs have a stigma attached that makes them unappealing to many and welfare used to have that same stigma attached because people felt really bad when they couldn't provide for their families and they wanted to get off welfare.

You cannot solve social problems by attacking symptoms.

 

[chucky2]

Totally agree Modelworks...except the solutions that would work to that require 'hard love' (else they'll just end up being watered down feel good ineffective BS), and when applied, those affected will scream racism/classism/whatever, the Media will eat it up and push it in everyones face, and every ACLU/Progressive/Bleeding Heart/White Guilter/etc will be running around with their hair on fire doing anything and everything to "stop the abuse".

This is why we have generations of communities on welfare/public aid.

 

[ElFenix]

Here ya go, bold text for emphasis.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Argue what you will, but since 1937 that clause has allow for massive expansion of the Government in providing for the less well off.

that's the preamble, not a grant of power. it's a reasoning for use of power, however. most of which has come from the commerce clause (interstate commerce need not be either interstate nor commerce to be interstate commerce)

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by IndyColtsFan
Show me where in the Constitution that is says people are entitled to welfare in the first place.

Here ya go, bold text for emphasis.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Argue what you will, but since 1937 that clause has allow for massive expansion of the Government in providing for the less well off.

Can also argue that this is the basis for Occupy.

This established the boundary between the 1% and the 99%.

The war between that boundary is just now being realized because there used to be a middle class.

The 1% was shielded while they allowed the middle class to survive, once they decided to do away with the middle class they made themselves on the front lines of battle.

By shear numbers, they will lose.

 

[IGBT]

good new for the druggies and dopers.

 

[chucky2]

The federal government is the very very top of that 1%, by orders of magnitude, and they've got impressive numbers of citizens (and non-citizens) backing them up, from the extremes of both sides no less (an amazing accomplishment).

I don't think the 1% have anything to worry about.

 

[umbrella39]

First time I've seen this one.

Your employer pays for your drug screen. Why should every American pay to see if a handful of welfare recipients are on drugs... I'd be far more curious which of our elected officials, who suck on the SAME government teet, are high. It might explain some recent legislation...

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Your employer pays for your drug screen. Why should every American pay to see if a handful of welfare recipients are on drugs... I'd be far more curious which of our elected officials, who suck on the SAME government teet, are high. It might explain some recent legislation...

I have no issue with anyone who is receiving a government paycheck or funds be subject to random drug screens.

 

[feralkid]

good new for the druggies and dopers.

And their children who need to be fed.