Florida's drug testing conspiracy

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
How about drug testing for all government employees?

Sounds good. Start with the president and congress and work your way down. On drugs = fired.

These "kick 'em while they're down" policies are no good.

I would end all of those programs anyway. These entitlement programs are destroying the economy. Social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, all of it; get rid of it all imo. What happened to self reliance? What happened to families and communities taking care of their own? The federal government should not be milking the taxpayer to provide for welfare mothers(in many cases multi-generational families) and unemployment should not be ongoing for years at a time. Having all of these people on the dole is a huge drag on the budget that needs to be cut out. Tough cuts need to be made and entitlement programs should not be sacrosanct.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
How about drug testing for all government employees?

Sounds good. Start with the president and congress and work your way down. On drugs = fired.

I've got a better, cheaper idea. How about we eliminate these ridiculous drug laws once and for all and stop using the government to control what people do?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
How about drug testing for all government employees?

Sounds good. Start with the president and congress and work your way down. On drugs = fired.

I've got a better, cheaper idea. How about we eliminate these ridiculous drug laws once and for all and stop using the government to control what people do?

I agree to some extent. Pot, in all honesty isnt nearly dangerous as alcohol and should be legal. But coke, heroin, lsd, ect. is horrible. Ive never meet a cokehead that wasnt an a***ole. Same goes for other people who are either addicted or take certain drugs regularly and say that they arent.

But, even if it is legal do you really like giving your money to somebody that just goes and gets high with it when they say that they are wanting it for food and clothing, etc.? Welfare isnt supossed to be for people who are lazy. Welfare is a helping hand to get people by on the way to bettering yourself. After you have or make enough money to stand on your own two feet without my help, go do whatever you want provided you dont hurt anybody else. Shoot up daily if youd like, just dont come bothering me for my money that I could use myself for my own vices and virtues.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

I don't know, hopped up government employees could do even more damage; don't you think? How about legalizing drugs for all but active government employees?

reply to post by Billmeister


You are not the only one. The state has been inundated with calls wanting to know what contracts the state has with Scott's companies, particularly the one you mention.

You aren't being overly cynical, just alert!

How do you like your TEA Party small government candidates now? How's that workin out for ya.

I say you all deserve what you get. It's what you wanted. There's an old saying, you made your bed, now lie in it.

Drug users that fail drug tests are more likely to be involved in crime to make up the difference than to get help to stop using the drugs. Its not logical its just human nature for the gotta have it now crowd.

So then you say fine we will beef up the law enforcement and prison facilities. Florida by the way likes to brag they can feed adult prisoners for $2 a day but I'm not sure child protective services are that efficient. Psychologically it must be better to leave kids in homes with drug addicted parents than put them under protective services.

There aren't any easy answers unless you want to live in a totalitarian nation like old school China with strict birth control and censorship.

Originally posted by dizzie56
I agree to some extent. Pot, in all honesty isnt nearly dangerous as alcohol and should be legal. But coke, heroin, lsd, ect. is horrible. Ive never meet a cokehead that wasnt an a***ole. Same goes for other people who are either addicted or take certain drugs regularly and say that they arent.

Sure, I don't like crackheads and coke fiends either. Is it moral to lock them up? Is it moral to create a black market that results in criminals becoming fabulously wealthy with violence skyrocketing?

But, even if it is legal do you really like giving your money to somebody that just goes and gets high with it when they say that they are wanting it for food and clothing, etc.?

I don't care what they do. And additionally, there's no proof that any welfare recipient testing positive on a drug test actually spent the money from the welfare check on those drugs. Remember, these are moocher types who may have received their high from either friends or outright theft without involving any welfare money.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
I would end all of those programs anyway. These entitlement programs are destroying the economy. Social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, all of it; get rid of it all imo. What happened to self reliance? What happened to families and communities taking care of their own? The federal government should not be milking the taxpayer to provide for welfare mothers(in many cases multi-generational families) and unemployment should not be ongoing for years at a time. Having all of these people on the dole is a huge drag on the budget that needs to be cut out. Tough cuts need to be made and entitlement programs should not be sacrosanct.

I agree to some extent with you. Id really like to get rid of most of these programs, and that should be the goal for people...to better themselves to where they dont need to be on them anymore. But the truth of the matter is that you cant always be self reliant or relly on family to help or to even make ends meet. It is a hard world and not everybody will be lawyers or doctors or even paid nearly as close to what those two make. Not everybody has that type of drive, but that is ok.

The real problem is system itself. Because the system itself has rules, people can game the system. How many people do you know on welfare programs that refuse to get better jobs even if they are offered them? Ive known several. Its not because they dont want to make more money, its if they make even $1 more an hour then they will get kicked off the program. There goes your hud housing, your welfare checks, food stamps, etc. Now, just on an extra maybe $30 a week you cant benefit from those types of programs that are meant to help you out when you need it. On an extra $30 a week you cant afford an apartment, food, clothes, etc. The real problem is that the system just uses a simple formula that says if you make X your good but anymore then X your out. Realism to actual real life senarios doesnt need apply.

Now, I think that drug testing would be a good start to actually moving in the correct step to improving the system. This would actually get rid of alot of dead weight and make room for people who are actually in need of such programs. I know single mothers that make $30k a year that have a hard time living. Mortgage, child care, food, electricity, water, etc. make it hard to live on that amount yet they cant actually go for a little help when they need it. The child support system doesnt always help them out as there are ways around getting out of paying your child support. Is it fair to anyone that a single mother that makes around $30k a year which is way to much to get help from the state, who is struggling to make ends meat, shouldnt get help from the state but when somebody who takes YOUR tax dollars to go get high its cool? Really? I just dont see it that way I guess. Maybe I'm crazy.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Remember, these are moocher types who may have received their high from either friends or outright theft without involving any welfare money.

God we've seen this so many times EVERYBODY doing that gets greedy and usually gets busted. Seriously I've seen this happen to over half a dozen of my neighbors. Oh and don't forget all the F'ing fights over whos corner they just moved it too..

Originally posted by Bordon81
Oh and don't forget all the F'ing fights over whos corner they just moved it too..

That's yet another problem arising from black market unregulated commerce in which disputes cannot be resolved legally in our courts. Get rid of these laws and those people with those problems will disappear.

Originally posted by dizzie56

Originally posted by Billmeister
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

Decisions are not based on what is good for the population, but rather, what is good for the politicians' and their friends' bank accounts.

the Billmeister

So are you saying that testing welfare recipients for drugs is not a good thing? I dislike them having to pay for the drug testing as they dont have the money for it in the first place but to me if your taking that money and spending it on drugs then its just a wasted handout.

Jesus what is the matter with some of you people, you dont think that Bankers and the employees of other Companies bailed out with your tax dollar should not have to be drug tested? Just the people on welfare right? Well the bankers are on a corporate welfare and are known for their risk taking and coc aine use. Surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but no, you've been brainwashed to hate anyone on welfare and lick the boots of the bankers and ceo's.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

I don't think they should have ever been bailed out to begin with. There is no such thing as "too big to fail" imo.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Jesus what is the matter with some of you people, you dont think that Bankers and the employees of other Companies bailed out with your tax dollar should not have to be drug tested? Just the people on welfare right? Well the bankers are on a corporate welfare and are known for their risk taking and coc aine use. Surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but no, you've been brainwashed to hate anyone on welfare and lick the boots of the bankers and ceo's.

What is the matter with you? I never said that the banks should have gotten the money in the first place. I say dont waste your time drug testing the bankers isntead just take back the money that wasnt supossed to go to them in the first place.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by dizzie56
I agree to some extent. Pot, in all honesty isnt nearly dangerous as alcohol and should be legal. But coke, heroin, lsd, ect. is horrible. Ive never meet a cokehead that wasnt an a***ole. Same goes for other people who are either addicted or take certain drugs regularly and say that they arent.

Sure, I don't like crackheads and coke fiends either. Is it moral to lock them up? Is it moral to create a black market that results in criminals becoming fabulously wealthy with violence skyrocketing?

But, even if it is legal do you really like giving your money to somebody that just goes and gets high with it when they say that they are wanting it for food and clothing, etc.?

I don't care what they do. And additionally, there's no proof that any welfare recipient testing positive on a drug test actually spent the money from the welfare check on those drugs. Remember, these are moocher types who may have received their high from either friends or outright theft without involving any welfare money.

First off, ive know several people on some type of welfare program and no, they arent all "moocher types". In fact, most of them werent moochers at all and the would probably take offense to you calling them mooches and not pass to you there stuff.

Second, not everybody that smokes pot is going to steal something to smoke up. Even people on welfare that smoke most likely aint gonna steal just to smoke pot. Crackheads, totally different story.

Third, what makes you think that if coke, crack, heroin, etc. became legal, those that have to steal to get high would actually stop stealing to get high? Do you think the price will just fall off if you were able to start selling crack at your local 7-11? Even if it does, most people would prolly smoke themselves to death in a matter of weeks if it was actually low enough for them not to steal for it. And even if it was that low, most likely a cokehead would be so doped up all the time that he would be fired for poor job performance (Ive had a couple employees like that before, got rid of em cause they aint worth a dime high) causing them to steal once again just to get high.

No, I dont think its moral to lock up people caught with a lil crack rock in their pocket. In reality they should be treated for drug dependency. Do I think its moral to lock up the guy selling the crack, hell yeah. That stuff does nobody any good and there really is no arguement that proves that its okay for people to take. It really does destroy peoples lives as does many other "hard" drugs.

Also, Im glad that you dont care about what other people do with YOUR money. Me on the other hand would like to opt out if I could to paying towards such programs and would like to donate that money that comes from my check to those programs to the charity of my choice that I know would use my money in a way I saw fit.

Originally posted by dizzie56

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
How about drug testing for all government employees?

Sounds good. Start with the president and congress and work your way down. On drugs = fired.

I've got a better, cheaper idea. How about we eliminate these ridiculous drug laws once and for all and stop using the government to control what people do?

I agree to some extent. Pot, in all honesty isnt nearly dangerous as alcohol and should be legal. But coke, heroin, lsd, ect. is horrible.

'___' is about as dangerous as pot.

Originally posted by dizzie56
First off, ive know several people on some type of welfare program and no, they arent all "moocher types". In fact, most of them werent moochers at all and the would probably take offense to you calling them mooches and not pass to you there stuff.

Fair enough. Were they spending their welfare checks on dope?

Second, not everybody that smokes pot is going to steal something to smoke up. Even people on welfare that smoke most likely aint gonna steal just to smoke pot. Crackheads, totally different story.

So where exactly is the proof that the welfare checks are being spent on dope? A positive drug test does not reveal such causation.

Third, what makes you think that if coke, crack, heroin, etc. became legal, those that have to steal to get high would actually stop stealing to get high? Do you think the price will just fall off if you were able to start selling crack at your local 7-11? Even if it does, most people would prolly smoke themselves to death in a matter of weeks if it was actually low enough for them not to steal for it. And even if it was that low, most likely a cokehead would be so doped up all the time that he would be fired for poor job performance (Ive had a couple employees like that before, got rid of em cause they aint worth a dime high) causing them to steal once again just to get high.

Yes, prices would be reduced and the likelihood of theft goes way down. Just like we learned with alcohol prohibition decades ago. And for those who cannot handle themselves, it works the same as with alcohol. You'll fire a drunk also, though I'm not aware of a rash of fired drunks stealing stuff to get drunk again.

No, I dont think its moral to lock up people caught with a lil crack rock in their pocket. In reality they should be treated for drug dependency. Do I think its moral to lock up the guy selling the crack, hell yeah. That stuff does nobody any good and there really is no arguement that proves that its okay for people to take. It really does destroy peoples lives as does many other "hard" drugs.

Alcohol is just as dangerous though we accept it

Also, Im glad that you dont care about what other people do with YOUR money. Me on the other hand would like to opt out if I could to paying towards such programs and would like to donate that money that comes from my check to those programs to the charity of my choice that I know would use my money in a way I saw fit.

It's not your money anymore once you've handed it over to the government. Not only have you not demonstrated that a positive drug test confirms that welfare money was spent on drugs but you also have to justify why you want to dispense so much power to a corrupt government on the excuse that you want them to control the behavior of others on your behalf. Why should taxpayer money go to a huge number of expensive drug testing facilities? Just because you don't like what other people might be doing?

I believe all drug tests are a blatant violation of individual liberty and an unreasonable search of one's bodily fluids. The only substance that drug tests are good at detecting is cannabis, all the others are out of one's body in days. Scott's plan will still enable junkies who have a prescription for heroin(aka Oxy, roxy, ect...) to still collect benefits and still use tax payer money to buy drugs, in my opinion prescription drugs are the biggest epidemic in drug abuse today. Even meth heads can get away with failing if they have a prescription for Adderall.

As much as I disagree with all drug testing, the part that alarms me the most is who is doing the drug tests. If Scott has it ways, his former company can make $100s of millions off those drug tests.

This will cost tax payers big time, for the tests and the pending lawsuits over false positives. The beneficiary to the mando drug tests are those who profit from the testing.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
1)Fair enough. Were they spending their welfare checks on dope?
So where exactly is the proof that the welfare checks are being spent on dope? A positive drug test does not reveal such causation.

2)Yes, prices would be reduced and the likelihood of theft goes way down. Just like we learned with alcohol prohibition decades ago. And for those who cannot handle themselves, it works the same as with alcohol. You'll fire a drunk also, though I'm not aware of a rash of fired drunks stealing stuff to get drunk again.
Alcohol is just as dangerous though we accept it

3) It's not your money anymore once you've handed it over to the government. Not only have you not demonstrated that a positive drug test confirms that welfare money was spent on drugs but you also have to justify why you want to dispense so much power to a corrupt government on the excuse that you want them to control the behavior of others on your behalf. Why should taxpayer money go to a huge number of expensive drug testing facilities? Just because you don't like what other people might be doing?

1) You cant exactly prove or disprove them spending their "actual" welfare checks on drugs. If you get a welfare check into your bank account and have the money from your job direct deposited into the same account but go to the atm and draw out a c note for some pot, which accounting line do you put it under? If you wanna be real technical, there is no way to prove that the "actual" check goes to drugs. But yet they still need help from the government and say that it is for food and water and clothes etc but spend money on drugs? Thats just bs and you are trying to split hairs here.

2) Have you ever meet a crackhead? They do ANYTHING to get high. They have no qualms about stealing to get high. If the prices go down yet they dont have a job to fund the habit, how do you honestly think they will pay for that habit? The same way they do now if they dont have a job, they steal. And no, alcohol isnt comparable to crack or coke. Yes they can both destroy your body but the likely hood of you getting addicted to alcohol vs crack is that you will be addicted to crack, no if ands or buts about it where you actually have a chance with alcohol.

3) My money is taken from me, not given to the government. Get it right. Like I said, i wish i had the choice to have my money goto the charity of my choosing vs being put into somebodies hands who use it to get high...i dont tho, but i can still wish. Government workers work for the people and it is our money that is feeding them, nobody elses. We have the right to tell them to get drug tested if we want to since they choose to work for the government. We are their bosses. And the drug tests will be bid out to private companies where the lowest bidder wins. In the long run, it will be much less expensive to get rid of drug users from the public sector and from welfare programs. And right now, as the bill stands the people that recieve the welfare benefits will actually be paying for the tests themselves (which I said previously, I really dont agree with) so it wont really be costing the government anything.

Originally posted by dizzie56
1) You cant exactly prove or disprove them spending their "actual" welfare checks on drugs. If you get a welfare check into your bank account and have the money from your job direct deposited into the same account but go to the atm and draw out a c note for some pot, which accounting line do you put it under? If you wanna be real technical, there is no way to prove that the "actual" check goes to drugs. But yet they still need help from the government and say that it is for food and water and clothes etc but spend money on drugs? Thats just bs and you are trying to split hairs here.

It's not splitting hairs. You still haven't shown any correlation between a positive drug test and that positive resulting from spending welfare checks on dope. You will need to in order to justify spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on drug tests.

2) Have you ever meet a crackhead? They do ANYTHING to get high. They have no qualms about stealing to get high. If the prices go down yet they dont have a job to fund the habit, how do you honestly think they will pay for that habit? The same way they do now if they dont have a job, they steal. And no, alcohol isnt comparable to crack or coke. Yes they can both destroy your body but the likely hood of you getting addicted to alcohol vs crack is that you will be addicted to crack, no if ands or buts about it where you actually have a chance with alcohol.

You can be just as addicted to alcohol as you can to crack yet we accept alcohol but prohibit crack. That aside, how much crack can you buy with a welfare check?

3) My money is taken from me, not given to the government. Get it right. Like I said, i wish i had the choice to have my money goto the charity of my choosing vs being put into somebodies hands who use it to get high...i dont tho, but i can still wish. Government workers work for the people and it is our money that is feeding them, nobody elses. We have the right to tell them to get drug tested if we want to since they choose to work for the government. We are their bosses. And the drug tests will be bid out to private companies where the lowest bidder wins. In the long run, it will be much less expensive to get rid of drug users from the public sector and from welfare programs. And right now, as the bill stands the people that recieve the welfare benefits will actually be paying for the tests themselves (which I said previously, I really dont agree with) so it wont really be costing the government anything.

So you feel that it is acceptable to hand this power to the government so that they can control the behavior of others on your behalf. I disagree with this ideology because I happen to like the protections that the 4th Amendment provides and also I tend to operate with reverence to freedom, not a government with huge amounts of power.