Page 1 of 8
#1
Florida Governor Rick Scott has signed into law a measure that requires prospective welfare recipients to pay for and undergo drug testing. Applicants who test positive for drug use will be barred from receiving government assistance for one year or until they complete a drug abuse program. Those who pass the test will be reimbursed for the cost. In a statement, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida said, "This law subjects Floridians who are impacted by the economic downturn…to a humiliating search of their urine and body fluids without cause or even suspicion of drug abuse."

Thoughts?

Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/2/headlines
#2
Quote by Rising
Florida Governor Rick Scott has signed into law a measure that requires prospective welfare recipients to pay for and undergo drug testing. Applicants who test positive for drug use will be barred from receiving government assistance for one year or until they complete a drug abuse program. Those who pass the test will be reimbursed for the cost. In a statement, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida said, "This law subjects Floridians who are impacted by the economic downturn…to a humiliating search of their urine and body fluids without cause or even suspicion of drug abuse."

Thoughts?

Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/2/headlines


Uugh, that's vulgar. I really have no words, it's sick.
Quote by the_white_bunny
your just a simpleton that cant understand strategy apparently.

Quote by the_white_bunny
all hail king of the penis sucking(i said balls. you said dick for some reason?) Isabiggles
#3
It's about time.
Quote by yellowfrizbee
What does a girl have to do to get it in the butt thats all I ever wanted from you. Why, Ace? Why? I clean my asshole every night hoping and wishing and it never happens.
Bitches be Crazy.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
#4
I interned at the ACLU this past spring. Heard them talk about this, but didn't work on it specifically. Still, messed up. You're essentially blackmailing the poor.
#5
it's times like this i'm glad i live in the uk, then i remeber about cameron and die a little inside...
#6
Meh. They are just trying to keep people from using welfare to buy drugs.

It is bullshit that they have to pay for the drug test that could keep them from getting money for the next year, though.
Quote by Butt Rayge
Pretty sure Jesus was decaffeinated.


I'm just a hedonist without happiness
#7
Governor Rick Scott has just done two things
1) Created a heap of new drug dealers and prostitutes (how else are they do get money now)
2) Created a spike in violent crime and theft (oh ya, that's how else).

Cash for gold merchants, Seed and grow shop owners, and grimy CEOs looking for a shag at lunch will thank him, but those effected by the needless hardship this will cause will not.

There are no positive effects to this. It will not significantly reduce the numbers taking drugs, and mandatory drug treatment camps are a joke (mandatory treatment facilities have been known to have relapse figures of between 80-100% where people are legally forced to attend).
Furthermore this will not save a penny in taxpayer's money. Those that don't attend drug treatment and instead turn to crime as their source of income will cost far more as they are brought into the justice system (extra police work, extra legal aid, extra court time, extra jail cells, extra social workers to take their kids away, etc etc etc) and those that do enter the treatment plans will cost more also (unless the treatment is super cheap, in which case it's going to have 100% relapse)


This is the wrong direction for dealing with the drug problem and based on populist pandering rather than evidence based policy making.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Last edited by Ur all $h1t at Jun 7, 2011,
#8
Quote by blackflag49
You're essentially blackmailing the poor.

since it's so unfair that THEY get free help from the government and should be held a little bit accountable for their lives.
יהוה


[][]
/ \


Quote by sinisa

How about actually doing something rather than asking everyone here questions?
#9
Millions of working folks have to pee in a cup to get their paycheck, and they actually work for it.


It's fine with me, if you aren't earning, you have no reason to be buying recreational drugs, and, frankly, I don't like the idea of someone spending MY tax dollars to sit around and get high.
Quote by CodChick


Seriously, I'm not a fan of iphones and guitars mixing.
#10
Yeah tons of junkies just live of welfare, so it makes sense.
Danelectro 1959 reissue

Quote by G.Krizzel
Music is just wiggly air. Accept it or leave it.


Also please visit this thread and help me tab out an album!!!
thread.
#11
Quote by blackflag49
. Still, messed up. You're essentially blackmailing the poor.


How is it "blackmailing"?

Anyway, yes, its wrong to assume that ALL poor Florida folk looking for welfare are on drugs, thats wrong but how is it wrong to have a mandatory drug test? Most jobs require drug test, is that wrong? No. This legislation I can see giving drug addicted people the incentive to quit. Welfare isnt a program that you use for life, its suppose to provide support for a persons family until they can provide for the family on their own.
For your sake I hope heaven & hell are really there, but I wouldn't hold my breath.




Guitar & skateboarding. Do what you want.
#12
i don't give a shit about their motives, this is a dumb-fuck thing to do, for all the reasons that have been mentioned by Ur all $h1t.
Click here to hear my BOB DYLAN (Blowing in the Wind) out right now May 2k17
#13
Quote by ecvMatt
Millions of working folks have to pee in a cup to get their paycheck, and they actually work for it.


It's fine with me, if you aren't earning, you have no reason to be buying recreational drugs, and, frankly, I don't like the idea of someone spending MY tax dollars to sit around and get high.

This. While currently our drug laws are stupid, I think it's a good idea.
#14
Finally.
Quote by Athabasca
My ex did the same. Cheated on me and then acted like I'd given her sister a facial. Women are retarded.
#16
There's a special sex move I do called the Charizard.
It's where you light the girls pubes, then put it out with your cum and run around the room flapping your arms screaming, "You don't have enough badges to train me!"
#17
Quote by laid-to-waste
i don't give a shit about their motives, this is a dumb-fuck thing to do, for all the reasons that have been mentioned by Ur all $h1t.

Yeah, its a stupid-as-shit thing to do, but what's new? Honestly, how many times has this country handled anything drug-related properly since Reagan started the "war"?
Quote by Butt Rayge
Pretty sure Jesus was decaffeinated.


I'm just a hedonist without happiness
#19
Quote by Alexi_hammett
How is it "blackmailing"?

Enter Drug Treatment or we cut off your only source of income.

Anyway, yes, its wrong to assume that ALL poor Florida folk looking for welfare are on drugs, thats wrong but how is it wrong to have a mandatory drug test? Most jobs require drug test, is that wrong? No.

Yes, it is. Many countries with decent labour laws (i.e. not the US) ban such practises; instead your employer must take the much more sensible route of basing his hiring and firing on your work performance rather than on whether or not you like to smoke up on weekends, which is none of his business.


This legislation I can see giving drug addicted people the incentive to quit. Welfare isnt a program that you use for life, its suppose to provide support for a persons family until they can provide for the family on their own.
Indeed it is, yet long term unemployment is a reality in a market system, there will never (except in the case of total war) be full employment, some people will always be seeking work. It's simply an economic reality.
This will do nothing to incentivise people to stop using drugs if they are addicts, that's simply not how addiction works (it's based on a whole variety of psychological factors that go far above and beyond the drug itself and into the emotional and cognitive state of the person, which is why drug treatment is so complex). It will prevent recreational use, but that harms nobody anyway. All this will do is boost Scott's ratings among those with no understanding of drug abuse and treatment and cost his constituents a lot of money and wellbeing.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#20
Quote by kadinh
since it's so unfair that THEY get free help from the government and should be held a little bit accountable for their lives.


There are better ways to tackle the drug problem than subjecting people to invasions of privacy based solely on the fact that they're collecting welfare. It's blackmail, either you give us a pee sample or no money for your family. Ridiculous.
#21
Quote by doomded
Yeah, its a stupid-as-shit thing to do, but what's new? Honestly, how many times has this country handled anything drug-related properly since Reagan started the "war"?


true, but i don't see how that makes it any less idiotic.
Click here to hear my BOB DYLAN (Blowing in the Wind) out right now May 2k17
#22
Quote by 801Current
Yeah tons of junkies just live of welfare, so it makes sense.

Drug addiction arises out of poverty. Not so uncommon in an economy run into the ground by corrupt officials and bankers.

If we could perhaps curb the economic structures that guarantee poverty, perhaps we could avoid having to deal with this drug problem in the first place.
#23
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Governor Rick Scott has just done two things
1) Created a heap of new drug dealers and prostitutes (how else are they do get money now)
2) Created a spike in violent crime and theft (oh ya, that's how else).

Cash for gold merchants, Seed and grow shop owners, and grimy CEOs looking for a shag at lunch will thank him, but those effected by the needless hardship this will cause will not.

There are no positive effects to this. It will not significantly reduce the numbers taking drugs, and mandatory drug treatment camps are a joke (mandatory treatment facilities have been known to have relapse figures of between 80-100% where people are legally forced to attend).
Furthermore this will not save a penny in taxpayer's money. Those that don't attend drug treatment and instead turn to crime as their source of income will cost far more as they are brought into the justice system (extra police work, extra legal aid, extra court time, extra jail cells, extra social workers to take their kids away, etc etc etc) and those that do enter the treatment plans will cost more also (unless the treatment is super cheap, in which case it's going to have 100% relapse)


This is the wrong direction for dealing with the drug problem and based on populist pandering rather than evidence based policy making.


See I just opposed this on gut instinct. Thanks for giving me the words.
#24
It should be pointed out that Rick Scott's company (Solantic, which is wife's trust now owns the controlling share of) makes a very large amount of money from Drug testing. Not only is this politically stupid, it's also morally abhorrent and a pretty clear attempt by Scott to make some cash.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html
Also a huge, and probably unconstitutional, breach of privacy, ironically being supported by those who claim to dislike "Big Government"; this is as big as it gets folks.

Furthermore, from a practical point of view, drug tests can provide false positives, yet their has been no mention thusfar of any appeals process.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Last edited by Ur all $h1t at Jun 7, 2011,
#25
Quote by blackflag49
There are better ways to tackle the drug problem than subjecting people to invasions of privacy based solely on the fact that they're collecting welfare. It's blackmail, either you give us a pee sample or no money for your family. Ridiculous.

oh yeah, and when you apply for a job, it's so unfair too to impose that "burden" on a prospective employee.

I agree that it is kinda "profiling" those on welfare, and the government is NEVER going to solve it's own problems, but would you be happy if you gave money to a friend you know to help them with their situation, but instead they spent it on alcohol or drugs or something else improper?
יהוה


[][]
/ \


Quote by sinisa

How about actually doing something rather than asking everyone here questions?
#26
Quote by gabcd86
See I just opposed this on gut instinct. Thanks for giving me the words.

Same way I felt about that post.
"I'm outraged! How do I express my contempt?....oh wait."
#27
Quote by Ur all $h1t
It should be pointed out that Rick Scott's company (Solantic, which is wife's trust now owns the controlling share of) makes a very large amount of money from Drug testing. Not only is this politically stupid, it's also morally abhorrent and a pretty clear attempt by Scott to make some cash.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html


Furthermore, from a practical point of view, drug tests can provide false positives, yet their has been no mention thusfar of any appeals process.


good point. everybody permanently loses any credibility they have left with the off-chance they get a false positive and get a year of treatment they don't need.
Click here to hear my BOB DYLAN (Blowing in the Wind) out right now May 2k17
#28
Quote by Ur all $h1t

Indeed it is, yet long term unemployment is a reality in a market system, there will never (except in the case of total war) be full employment, some people will always be seeking work. It's simply an economic reality.
This will do nothing to incentivise people to stop using drugs if they are addicts, that's simply not how addiction works (it's based on a whole variety of psychological factors that go far above and beyond the drug itself and into the emotional and cognitive state of the person, which is why drug treatment is so complex). It will prevent recreational use, but that harms nobody anyway. All this will do is boost Scott's ratings among those with no understanding of drug abuse and treatment and cost his constituents a lot of money and wellbeing.


Honestly, I didn't think about it like that. You've made very good points, and thought thoroughly thought about this, where as I didn't. You have definitely made me think and I'm really rethinking my single minded view of this topic. Although unlike other countries that don't drug test, THIS country does. In that light this really is the same thing (not THE SAME, but i hope people can get what im trying to say) . I didn't know that a "mandatory treatment jazz" was involved, which i don't support. If someone doesn't want help then forcing them to get help WONT help them.
For your sake I hope heaven & hell are really there, but I wouldn't hold my breath.




Guitar & skateboarding. Do what you want.
#29
Quote by kadinh
oh yeah, and when you apply for a job, it's so unfair too to impose that "burden" on a prospective employee.

I agree that it is kinda "profiling" those on welfare, and the government is NEVER going to solve it's own problems, but would you be happy if you gave money to a friend you know to help them with their situation, but instead they spent it on alcohol or drugs or something else improper?

I certainly wouldn't demand that my friend took a drug test.


Also, this law has no problem with them spending it on alcohol.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Last edited by Ur all $h1t at Jun 7, 2011,
#31
Quote by Ur all $h1t
I certainly would demand that my friend took a drug test.


Also, this law has no problem with them spending it on alcohol.


I'm guessing wouldn't*, babe.
#32
Quote by Ur all $h1t
I certainly would demand that my friend took a drug test.


Also, this law has no problem with them spending it on alcohol.


REALLY?

Also, nobody cares if youre an alcoholic who abuses him/herself and his/her family. Who cares?? Its legal, Right??
For your sake I hope heaven & hell are really there, but I wouldn't hold my breath.




Guitar & skateboarding. Do what you want.
#33
Quote by guitarhero_764
Er?

Woops, edited.


Darn over-reliance on squiggly red lines to tell me I've mistyped.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#34
Quote by Ur all $h1t
It should be pointed out that Rick Scott's company (Solantic, which is wife's trust now owns the controlling share of) makes a very large amount of money from Drug testing. Not only is this politically stupid, it's also morally abhorrent and a pretty clear attempt by Scott to make some cash.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html
Also a huge, and probably unconstitutional, breach of privacy, ironically being supported by those who claim to dislike "Big Government"; this is as big as it gets folks.

Furthermore, from a practical point of view, drug tests can provide false positives, yet their has been no mention thusfar of any appeals process.

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. He always seemed like such a sleazy guy to me, especially after I read about the fraud he was involved in when he was CEO of Columbia Hospital.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott#Columbia.2FHCA_fraud_case_details
#35
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Woops, edited.


Darn over-reliance on squiggly red lines to tell me I've mistyped.

I couldn't tell if it was a typo or if you were trying to make some bizarre point about friend relationships vs. government relationships
#36
Quote by Alexi_hammett
REALLY?

Also, nobody cares if youre an alcoholic who abuses him/herself and his/her family. Who cares?? Its legal, Right??


Well there's clearly an immense double-standard from the govt. here.
#37
Quote by kadinh
oh yeah, and when you apply for a job, it's so unfair too to impose that "burden" on a prospective employee.

I agree that it is kinda "profiling" those on welfare, and the government is NEVER going to solve it's own problems, but would you be happy if you gave money to a friend you know to help them with their situation, but instead they spent it on alcohol or drugs or something else improper?

It kinda is. From the perspective of a pot smoker who doesn't let his recreational habit affect his work, why should it be any of your employer's business?

There's also the fact that, you know, people choose to apply for jobs, while the whole premise behind welfare is it's for people with no other recourse. So they're basically over a barrel with this.

And again, to reiterate, it does **** all to solve any actual problems.
#38
Quote by Ur all $h1t
It should be pointed out that Rick Scott's company (Solantic, which is wife's trust now owns the controlling share of) makes a very large amount of money from Drug testing. Not only is this politically stupid, it's also morally abhorrent and a pretty clear attempt by Scott to make some cash.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html

Also a huge, and probably unconstitutional, breach of privacy, ironically being supported by those who claim to dislike "Big Government"; this is as big as it gets folks.

Furthermore, from a practical point of view, drug tests can provide false positives, yet their has been no mention thusfar of any appeals process.

that is disgusting, and really, so is this whole thing. by denying welfare to those that come up positive on drug tests, you are punishing the children of these people.

Rick Scott is likely the worst governor in the US.
#39
I don't care if it stops addict from doing drugs or not, their addiction is their concern, not mine. What I care about is them using free money to support that addiction. If you want to do drugs, don't use the money I and millions of other hardworking taxpayers earned.

Personally, I think there should be strict limits on welfare, no more than 5 years per able bodied person, if, in 5 years you are still unwilling to try to provide for yourself, F you!

I see legislation like this as a stepping stone to ending the welfare state and lifelong recipients. The system is abused to a sickening extent, and there is a culture in the U.S. that believes it is an entitlement, and that they needn't contribute, only benefit.
Quote by CodChick


Seriously, I'm not a fan of iphones and guitars mixing.
#40
Quote by uhh_me?
that is disgusting, and really, so is this whole thing. by denying welfare to those that come up positive on drug tests, you are punishing the children of these people.

Rick Scott is likely the worst governor in the US.


Really? Because I think using drugs while not working to support your child is what's really punishing the children.
Quote by CodChick


Seriously, I'm not a fan of iphones and guitars mixing.