Remember Florida drug testing welfare recipients? Yeah...about that...

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Really, I just don't support anything that takes away freedom for any American citizen. It seems to me a lot of people are quick to get bent out of shape about freedom and government intrusion on everything except the issues where it is actually intrusive.

Ah, I see. So this is the point and the specific examples are just there to illustrate the wide array of people who have contact with the government in some form. So, if I were to attack your argument using any of the specific examples, I really would be making your point for you. For example, just as many feel that this group is being singled out and linked to something that has no intrinsic connection to the service being provided, there are many other services that other groups take advantage of. And if this service could be linked to drug use (or some other activity that may even be legal- I mean, should habitual drinkers be allowed to drive at all?) then they too could be singled out. Over time, step by step, if I understand what you’re saying, so many groups could be included that almost no one would escape scrutiny. So, just to be clear, really you’re not saying any of the groups you cite should be drug tested at all. In fact, you’re saying that they shouldn’t. Ah. And if I were to argue that they shouldn’t either, that would, again, make your point for you. I think I get it now. I have to say, that’s an eloquent argument, but will likely be lost on many. Or even more likely, many won’t even make any effort to understand your point because they’re more interested in being “right” than engaging in any kind of thought exercise. They will simply look for some ostensibly logical reason why you’re wrong, missing the actual point all together. Which, let’s face it, is why these arguments are pointless and why it’s so easy for politicians to set an agenda for us.

Hehe, that was a great post! (<- Legit, no sarcasm)

I'll at least be upfront and admit that my desire for it is petty, and goes no further than "If I have to be subjected to it, so do you."

I realize, that is a seriously, seriously crappy position to take.

I'd rather no one is drug/alcohol tested until you screw up.

But I don't see businesses/insurance/courts going against that Supreme Court ruling any time soon.

Thank you and I'm glad you took it in the spirit in which I intended. And, yes, I agree- no one should be tested unless there is some reason to suspect they are guilty of something. We're getting lazy, people. They're not stealing our freedom, we're giving it away. I hear loads of cries about the second amendment, meanwhile, we've pretty much given up on the fourth.

Its really easy to look down on the folks who take welfare, I catch myself doing it sometimes. Which is pretty lame because in my first year or two of college my wife and I were on it...

I can't really speak for everyone who is on it, but in my case I feel it was a good deal for the government, between the welfare, food stamps, and student financial aid I was able to get my engineering degree, and my wife was able to get her chemistry degree.

Wife and I are both employed and we are paying taxes through the nose, I have no doubt that the money I was given to get by has already been paid back in spades.

Although I was thankful for it, I hated taking the handouts. There was a LOT paperwork and permissions we had to give the local government in order to get aid, and it always felt that the aid could be taken away at any moment for relatively minor screw ups in the paperwork. I hated having big brother scrutinize my finances.

I don't think drug testing welfare recipients is a good use of resources, but I would have put up with it for the good of my family.

i grew up on government assistance after my dad died- SSI, food stamps, MN Care health insurance, etc.. mom didn't get a lot of money for nice things and the only free food we got came in a plain white box with a black label that said what was in it- i don't know how they were legally able to put a "CHEESE" label on the cheese, but they did..

back then (mid to late 80's) there was still a stigma attached to being on welfare.. that stigma forced you to not let others know you were getting government money, and made you feel a sense of shame when you held up the line at the grocery store because you had to divide up all your generic food into neat little piles. then once you were done inside, you got to load your free food into your beat up and barely functioning 15-20 year old car.

they still make the people on food stamps separate their food at the cash register and hold up the lines, but no one seems ashamed of it any more- they've got no reason to want to do better for themselves or make their kids want to do better for themselves. in fact, they almost seem proud of the fact that they are holding up other people in line while chatting on their cell phones, then push they their overflowing carts out to a nice 5 year old SUV.

now, as someone that grew up poor, it really bugs me that i bust my ass for 40+ hours a week and have to pay for whatever i need to barely get by week to week when i see someone using their public assistance (which i helped to pay for) the way i see it used almost every day when i stop at the grocery store on my way to work. if making them take a drug test to prove that they are at least willing to put in the effort to not fail the drug test keeps my money away from even a few of those people and forces them to rethink some things, then i'm all for it.

novaderrik wrote: back then (mid to late 80's) there was still a stigma attached to being on welfare.. that stigma forced you to not let others know you were getting government money, and made you feel a sense of shame

You have to admit you're seeing it through a different lens now than you did then. I bet most of the families now feel the same way you did, but you probably don't notice those. The ones that stand out are those that act the way you described.

I think there might be more of a stigma now actually. I remember public assistance being something worth pity, not the open hatred and scapegoating that is so popular now. I think those attitudes keep a lot of prideful people from taking advantage of assistance, and what good is that if they end up losing their house instead of just having a rough few months that they could have put behind them with help?

Josh wrote:

novaderrik wrote: back then (mid to late 80's) there was still a stigma attached to being on welfare.. that stigma forced you to not let others know you were getting government money, and made you feel a sense of shame

You have to admit you're seeing it through a different lens now than you did then. I bet most of the families now feel the same way you did, but you probably don't notice those. The ones that stand out are those that act the way you described. I think there might be more of a stigma now actually. I remember public assistance being something worth pity, not the open hatred and scapegoating that is so popular now. I think those attitudes keep a lot of prideful people from taking advantage of assistance, and what good is that if they end up losing their house instead of just having a rough few months that they could have put behind them with help?

i speak from what i see and experience every day and what my mom tells me.. she works at the grocery store in town, and she says that the food stamp customers are the worst and most demanding ones they get. when there's only 2 registers and only 2 people working in the store that doesn't even have UPC scanners, it doesn't take much for things to get backed up.. my mom isn't know for being judgemental of people, and always tries to remember that she was the person using the food stamps 25 years ago. my mom always- always- tried to go shopping when the stores were mostly empty to avoid being a nuisance or broadcasting our poverty to more people than necessary. she says that they have no such qualms about those things today.

novaderrik wrote: i speak from what i see and experience every day and what my mom tells me.. she works at the grocery store in town, and she says that the food stamp customers are the worst and most demanding ones they get.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that while some people on food stamps may act one way...I can bet not ALL of them act that way. Much like your Mom back in her day of being on assistance.

One example does not equal a trend or factual data.

~~~~

Back on topic...

The whole point being that drug tests are ridiculous. Namely because the drug war is ridiculous. Also because they are not applied universally or with any eye towards fairness. Another commenter pointed out that low paying jobs are routinely drug tested while white collar jobs are typically not. This is unfair and therefore unamerican.

The same with drug testing welfare recipients. Fast Eddie brought up the excellent point that social security recipients aren't drug tested. Nor are politicians. If the reasoning is that all recipients of gov't help or money should be drug tested then those groups would be. They are not. This proves that the law is not about fairness or actually saving money. It's about pissing on people because you can.

Xceler8x wrote:

novaderrik wrote: i speak from what i see and experience every day and what my mom tells me.. she works at the grocery store in town, and she says that the food stamp customers are the worst and most demanding ones they get.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that while some people on food stamps may act one way...I can bet not ALL of them act that way. Much like your Mom back in her day of being on assistance. One example does not equal a trend or factual data. ~~~~ Back on topic... The whole point being that drug tests are ridiculous. Namely because the drug war is ridiculous. Also because they are not applied universally or with any eye towards fairness. Another commenter pointed out that low paying jobs are routinely drug tested while white collar jobs are typically not. This is unfair and therefore unamerican. The same with drug testing welfare recipients. Fast Eddie brought up the excellent point that social security recipients aren't drug tested. Nor are politicians. If the reasoning is that all recipients of gov't help or money should be drug tested then those groups would be. They are not. This proves that the law is not about fairness or actually saving money. It's about pissing on people because you can.

the reasoning is that if you can't afford to survive on your own and need public money to get by, then you shouldn't be able to use that money to get chemically altered- get out and earn your own money and it's not my concern what you put into your body.

how do you feel when you see someone holding up a line at the grocery store because they are using food stamps, and then see them pull into the liquor store parking lot 5 minutes later or buying $20 in scratch off lotto tickets at the convenience store the next day? personally, it kind of pisses me off..

One side is parroting the same thing over and over, the other side is coming up with valid reasons this is a bad idea. Sounds like the only people that think this is a good ideal is because if you're working poor, you have to get drug tested, too. We've touched on addiction as being a reason that this is a bad idea, and we've used the kids as a scapegoat, too. And you can't tell me this isn't about the kids. The kids are why drugs are bad, mmkay? We don't mind spending a ton of money on this asinine drug ware, because the kids.

So, we don't want the kids to get drugs, so we make them illegal. Then we don't let parents get money for their kids if they happen to smoke up at a friends' house 3 weeks before their drug test. Now you want to save the kids so they can starve to death?

I don't know, the political extremes just don't make sense to me.

I think the war on drugs is silly, and drug testing for the sake of drug testing does nothing more than make money for businesses that process drug tests. Since our governor owns one of those business, I think it can be safe to assume that he's making some dough off of the deal, too. Not much, but not everyone is tested now.

I think we could live a few years without government regulations clogging up the system and keeping people that would normally take care of themselves alive and well. Let Darwin thin the heard for 5 years while reasonable people handle things themselves.

you can be for legalizing marijuana but still be for drug testing for government aid. there's even precedence. alcohol is legal but you can't use food assistance to buy it in Florida in this case.

I'm all for legalizing marijuana. safety regulations for quality, let the states tax it for extra revenue, stop all the fighting for it. doesn't mean you should show up to work high, just like you shouldn't show up drunk. If you can get a job that lets you get away with that, great for you. doesn't change that most jobs require you be sober to function.

Derick Freese wrote: I don't know, the political extremes just don't make sense to me.

That is the problem.. most people are in the middle of the extremes and are just confused.. so they parrot what makes the most amount of sense to them.

Derick Freese wrote: I don't know, the political extremes just don't make sense to me.

Here's one that all Floridians can get behind; novelist Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug tests for all of our legislature.

Among its dubious achievements this year, the Florida Legislature passed a law authorizing random drug tests for state workers. Guess who’s exempt? Lawmakers themselves. So now the clerk down at the DMV gets to pee in a cup — but not the knuckleheads in Tallahassee who control $70 billion in public funds. Whom do you think is more dangerous to the future of Florida? In the session that just ended, the Legislature jacked up tuition on state college students while creating a new university to placate one cranky senator. It threw more than 4,400 state workers out of their jobs while handing out more than $800 million in tax break to businesses. Clearly, legislators are impaired. Is it meth? Coke? Mushrooms? We’ll never know. A few months ago, I offered to pay for drug tests for all 160 state senators and representatives. The deal was that all of them had to do it. Not a penny of taxpayer money would be spent. Shockingly, the Republican leadership showed zero interest in my proposal. Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2698126/surprise-lawmakers-turn-down-free.html#storylink=cpy

The problem with drug testing any Floridian politicians is you get to find where your money really is going. Some people can't handle the truth. Or meth.

/slight sarcasm

JoeyM wrote:

Derick Freese wrote: I don't know, the political extremes just don't make sense to me.

Here's one that all Floridians can get behind; novelist Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug tests for all of our legislature.

Among its dubious achievements this year, the Florida Legislature passed a law authorizing random drug tests for state workers. Guess who’s exempt? Lawmakers themselves. So now the clerk down at the DMV gets to pee in a cup — but not the knuckleheads in Tallahassee who control $70 billion in public funds. Whom do you think is more dangerous to the future of Florida? In the session that just ended, the Legislature jacked up tuition on state college students while creating a new university to placate one cranky senator. It threw more than 4,400 state workers out of their jobs while handing out more than $800 million in tax break to businesses. Clearly, legislators are impaired. Is it meth? Coke? Mushrooms? We’ll never know. A few months ago, I offered to pay for drug tests for all 160 state senators and representatives. The deal was that all of them had to do it. Not a penny of taxpayer money would be spent. Shockingly, the Republican leadership showed zero interest in my proposal. Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2698126/surprise-lawmakers-turn-down-free.html#storylink=cpy

That's pretty much the deal up here too. Can't interrupt the lawmaker's partying, now can we?

novaderrik wrote: the reasoning is that if you can't afford to survive on your own and need public money to get by, then you shouldn't be able to use that money to get chemically altered- get out and earn your own money and it's not my concern what you put into your body. how do you feel when you see someone holding up a line at the grocery store because they are using food stamps, and then see them pull into the liquor store parking lot 5 minutes later or buying $20 in scratch off lotto tickets at the convenience store the next day? personally, it kind of pisses me off..

1. As proven by the tests given, very few people on public assistance are getting high. Your outrage is disproportional to the actual issue. You perceive a problem where there is none.

2. I have never seen someone use public assistance and then go to a liquor store. See point 1.

~~~~

JoeyM wrote:

Derick Freese wrote: I don't know, the political extremes just don't make sense to me.

Here's one that all Floridians can get behind; novelist Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug tests for all of our legislature.

Derick Freese wrote: The problem with drug testing any Floridian politicians is you get to find where your money really is going. Some people can't handle the truth. Or meth. /slight sarcasm

Curmudgeon wrote: That's pretty much the deal up here too. Can't interrupt the lawmaker's partying, now can we?

Which is really the crux of the issue. Florida's lawmakers are all for making someone else's life harder to make themselves feel better about an issue they imagined and actually does not exist. All while making sure the lawmakers are, yet again, above the law they've enacted.

Now that we have actual data on this I can only hope logic is used (fat chance) and the law is rescinded so Florida can actually do something that will save money instead of pissing (literally) it away for some ridiculous and ultimately worthless social crisis created out of fiction.