Yay for the Sunshine State !

dogtowner

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
17,849
Location
Wandering around
They have passed a law requiring drug testing as a requirement for welfare !

Bets on how long it will take for Holder to jump into this ?

A lot of dem voters are going to have to be moving.
 
Werbung:
If one fails the test does one not get welfare? Or would one get it anyway but now the gov knows they use drugs?

Wouldn't poor people who suffer from addictions need welfare in order to get treatment?

Shouldn't welfare be based on need alone with zero politics including politics associated with the war on drugs. If we based welfare on need alone we might be able to cut the welfare rolls in half and could stop worrying about who uses drugs or not. And for the record I am not a drug user - not even tobacco or alchohol except for maybe two drinks per year.
 
If one fails the test does one not get welfare? Or would one get it anyway but now the gov knows they use drugs?

Wouldn't poor people who suffer from addictions need welfare in order to get treatment?

Shouldn't welfare be based on need alone with zero politics including politics associated with the war on drugs. If we based welfare on need alone we might be able to cut the welfare rolls in half and could stop worrying about who uses drugs or not. And for the record I am not a drug user - not even tobacco or alchohol except for maybe two drinks per year.


the idea is that tax dollars not go toward purchase of illegal drugs. if they're illegal i cant see that as political.

its become clear to me with the huge influx of disability people that there are many quite willing to use the safetu net as a hammock
 
They have passed a law requiring drug testing as a requirement for welfare !

Bets on how long it will take for Holder to jump into this ?

A lot of dem voters are going to have to be moving.

This law is stupid, and it amounts to nothing more than bad policy in an effort to please a constituency that has not thought the issue through.

Florida has had this law in place since 2011 -- however enforcement has been halted by court order as I understand it. During they time they ran the program, they had 2.6% of applicants test positive for drugs (lower than the state's drug rate among the general population), and it ended up costing the state money to implement the program.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for getting drug users off welfare, but the law doesn't do much to actually achieve that either for those that actually tested positive. For example, even if they test positive, they continue to get benefits as long as they undergo a drug rehabilitation program (paid for by the taxpayers of course). If they refuse to do this, but have kids, they can still get benefits for the children (and I am sure will use them solely on the kids).

So, lets get this straight, we have what we perceive to be a broken bureaucratic system, so in an effort to fix it, we create another layer of bureaucracy, and the end result is more spending on these programs. Terrible policy.

And while we are at it in terms of "legal" issues surrounding these laws, it might be noted the first attempt at this came in 2003 when Michigan did it, and it was ruled unconstitutional.
 
This law is stupid, and it amounts to nothing more than bad policy in an effort to please a constituency that has not thought the issue through.

Florida has had this law in place since 2011 -- however enforcement has been halted by court order as I understand it. During they time they ran the program, they had 2.6% of applicants test positive for drugs (lower than the state's drug rate among the general population), and it ended up costing the state money to implement the program.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for getting drug users off welfare, but the law doesn't do much to actually achieve that either for those that actually tested positive. For example, even if they test positive, they continue to get benefits as long as they undergo a drug rehabilitation program (paid for by the taxpayers of course). If they refuse to do this, but have kids, they can still get benefits for the children (and I am sure will use them solely on the kids).

So, lets get this straight, we have what we perceive to be a broken bureaucratic system, so in an effort to fix it, we create another layer of bureaucracy, and the end result is more spending on these programs. Terrible policy.

And while we are at it in terms of "legal" issues surrounding these laws, it might be noted the first attempt at this came in 2003 when Michigan did it, and it was ruled unconstitutional.

No its not,,, Some people do need help with money. Others are looking for an handout. So if you want welfare don't drink booze or take drugs.
 
No its not,,, Some people do need help with money. Others are looking for an handout. So if you want welfare don't drink booze or take drugs.

Again, as the Florida example clearly shows, the end result is more spending.
 
while psying sttention to the bottom line is prudent, so is removing an impediment to getting these people becoming productive as well as taking profit from the gangs.

How does this legislation remove any impediment to accomplish this?
 
Werbung:
Back
Top