Looks like Florida's program to drug test welfare recipients will save the state $40thousand to $98thousand a year, not including cost of administering the program, at a cost of only $178million.  tbo.com


This has nothing to do with Florida governor Rick Scott's shadow-ownership of the major drug testing company in Florida.


Republicans are against government intrusion into people's private lives.  This is not an intrusion into anyone's private life, either.











Views: 1093

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well, if Republicans understood the freedom that they espouse to believe in, they wouldn't have a problem with people doing drugs.  Also, I imagine that they can't be kicked off for alcohol or tobacco?  Both addictive and able to be abused, but legal.  Hypocrites, and they should be ashamed of using poor people as a political punching bag.  I don't believe in welfare, but as long as we have our current system in place, it will unfortunately be necessary.

I think it's pretty blatantly classist to employ drug testing in such a selective manner. This type of law assumes that the only people that receive government money are the poor when, in fact, there is a large amount of money going out the door in oil subsidies, farm subsidies, business "incentives", tax breaks to the ultra wealthy to "create jobs", etc.


Let's not forget that there is also non-cash governmental funding in the form of free schooling for our children, free police protection, the court system (which the wealthy and corporations benefit more greatly from), fire protection, military protection, etc.

If we are going to really drug test people who receive "hand-outs" from the government, shouldn't we be testing pretty much every US citizen rather than just the poorest ones? The problem is that some people assume that poor = drugs. Coincidentally, I would think you'd find a fairly large number of drug abusers among the wealthy (i.e. musicians, actors, executives). We all pretty much know that Bill Maher smokes pot, but he recieves a substantial tax break because of how much money he makes. Documents coming out of Enron showed an environment of drug use among upper management as part of the "fast" lifestyle. I could go on...

In general, while I am willing to pay taxes to fund a welfare safety net, I am much less willing to pay for a welfare feather bed. The worry of large scale drugs testing is always Quis custodiet ipsos custodes : it adds another layer of bureaucracy.

Your first paragraph touches on an excellent point.  As you pointed out, subsidies to various sectors are considered welfare.  So yes, in turn, there should be a way to make this applicable to the corporations and sectors that receive government funding.  However, a lot of those sectors are established, usually providing significant monetary returns.  And I think that's the significant difference between private sectors and private, impoverished individuals.


Furthermore, you'd have to provide a significant amount of statistics to show drug use within sectors.  On the contrary, drug use statistics are based on the class systems and illicit drug use is statistically higher in the poor, so it only makes sense to issue drug tests, especially if we all want to see returns and an elevation of the poor to a higher income bracket.


there are a number of issues here. Let's face it welfare is really screwed up. It would be morally reprehensible to deny someone help. On the other hand where do you draw the line. As for drug abuse there are some very inexpensive screening tests that could be used. there could be a three strikes rule or some such. People who test positive could get help and potentially get cleaned up and get employed. Where does it say that the taxpayers who themselves are struggling are required to support bad behavior. If you are earning your own money and decide to blow it on sex drugs and rock 'n roll that your business. Don't think for a minute though I want a handout my hard-earned cash to some ne'er-do-well. This is a another example of bad behavior or poor choices usurping the moral high ground. As I said I am not unwilling to help someone but it's my money it's my rules. I think welfare is far too lenient. Yes I know the argument that for the downtrodden do not humiliate or denigrate them any more than they are. I am more than willing to help someone who wishes to help themselves. I think there should be mandatory drug testing, mandatory verifiable birth control, semi annual health check ups in the categorization of the money given to welfare recipients. I think this should be a limit on pregnancies for example if you enter welfare with one child and have another that's fine but at that point to make it my responsibility if you decide to have a third fourth or fifth child. Do not say I am cruel do not try to take the moral high ground. having children is your responsibility not mine. If you are told not to have any more children and have to accept mandatory birth controland try to cheat the system I'm sorry supporting a child is your problem not mine. That's one of the problems with welfare today. If I get a loan from the bank and I don't pay back they take my stuff. While welfare is not a loan there are too few rules for keeping the recipients in check. If you come to my door on a rainy night I will give you soup, and hot shower cleaning dryer close a blanket and the couch to sleep on. The problem with welfare they've come to my door demanding steak my good scotch a bubble bath and my bed.as I said we should help each other but all things have their limits.
A ceo, a welfare recipient and a laborer are all sitting at a table when a plate with 100 cookies arrives. Before anyone else can make a move, the ceo reaches out to rake in 99 of the cookies. When the other two look at him in surprise, the ceo locks eyes with the laborer. "You better watch him," the executive says with a nod toward the welfare recipient. "He wants a piece of your cookie."
and the laborer is now peeved at the welfare recipient for wanting a few crumbs, conveniently forgetting about boss hog scoffing all the cookies. Kind of like this post going of topic - Rick Scott raking in the cookies, while many are moaning instead about the welfare recipient.
And the ceo is insisting that the welfare recipient and laborer both undergo drug testing before either gets a cookie.  They will have to pay for it themselves, but if it is negative, the laborer will have to pay the ceo for the welfare recipient's test.  If it is positive, then the ceo gets that cookie too.

This is a really clever allegory - I like it!

Totally stealing this.
Regardless of what his stake in the company is, there's absolutely no reason why someone on welfare should not be drug tested.  Want government welfare?  Simple, keep clean.  Use the apportionment appropriately to serve your needs to survive and help out your family for the time allotted.  He did the right thing, however, my only concern is how effective the drug testing is and are the people who are administering it and reading the results qualified?

Oh, so do you get drug tested? I would hope so since you get some sort of "handout" from the government, whether it be tax credits, subsidized student loan interest, etc. I'm sure we can find something that you receive from our tax dollars that you should be tested for.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service