It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I also feel this is a waste of effort and resources to implement. An addict/user determined to acquire assistance will find a way. The tests may catch some people, but that is true with anyone doing drug testing---you'll catch some people. But not all of them. Is it cheaper in the long-term to employ these testing companies just to catch a minority with their hand in the illicit cookie jar? Are there even stats for this, approximations, something?

That said, I've known MANY people on various forms of government assistance, and none were drug users. However, the poor I've known that were indeed drug users were not on assistance. Why? They were paranoid about getting caught. They turned to other ways, albeit also illegal, to obtain the money they lacked. They will sell everything they own, anything they can steal, drugs, or themselves before turning the the government. A paranoid junkie is not going to beg Uncle Sam for assistance. Perhaps if they are out of options and have hit their rock bottom, but not before that.

Ultimately, I think it is repulsive to punish children for the actions of the parents. Might it not be simpler and cheaper to set up an automated payment system for the bills these people cannot pay? That seems to be a far more direct & appropriate solution for TANF's funds. If you're going to help someone pay their bills, pay the bills. Not the person. At least you know that way, their bill IS beyond a doubt getting paid, not squandered on something else.




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
One i saw a lot of back in my EMT days was the ladies with 2 or 3 kids that would claim there husband walked out on them.

But if you watched the husband only hid out for a week or two till the wife got on welfare and public housing then they moved back in.
The other one was after the EX left and she got on welfare a new boyfriend moved in and was living on free public housing and her welfare checks and dealing drugs in the projects.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Yay, more government intrusion into personal lives, courtesy of your basic freedom loving Republican.

But remember, only the freedoms that good Republicans believe in.

This is the stupidest idea in a long time. Just what is needed, is more red tape more BS more nonsense.

There are not enough negative words in the English language to fully describe this kind of tripe.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I completely support this measure. If you test positive for drugs kiss your free money goodbye. I also believe you shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol or smokes with the free money that you get paid. That money comes from people like me out in the real world who work for a living trying to make ends meet.


You dont live in the real world.
There is no real world.
You live in the New World Order.
You are a sheeple.
Now try not to forget that.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
In the area i live in there are welfare recipients everywhere. Their children are growing up to be criminals and thugs because they lack cognitive learning skills because there mothers did crack while they where pregnant. I agree something needs to be done and its in the states rights to protect its populations well-being. That being said if we had not miserably lost the war on drugs this would not be a problem.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
From the sounds of it the majority on ATS believe that personal freedoms, privacy, due process and protection from unreasonable searches should not be given to the poor, the disabled or low income elderly. Great patriots and lovers of the Constitution, aren't they? Here's an idea. Let's drug test anyone coming into an emergency room in the USA and if they test positive for any illegal substances or are legally drunk, let's not treat them for their injuries, okay? Personal responsibility or no life sustaining efforts or EMTs for you. I pay for that stuff with MY TAX MONEY too. I pay for you driving too fast in my neighborhood while on your legally prescribed pain killers. I pay for that Governor's and that Congressman's health care. Drug test them!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisCrikey
 


Why is it any different than an employer drug testing?

These people approach some entity and ask for money. That entity agrees to give them money with certain restrictions like a drug test. I don't see the problem. It isn't like we are just testing people randomly on the street. We are testing people that are asking for our money, and before we hand it over, we want a few ground rules.

Why should they NOT be tested? If I want to get a decent job, I am subject to a drug test, so surely it is not that much to ask of someone getting money for doing nothing?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisCrikey
 


Your Wrong. When you accept money from the government you are required to meet guidelines. If i went and applied for food stamps or welfare or disability they will require income info health info ect.

If these guidlines were not in place instead of 20 percent of americans mooching off the system it would be more like 80 percent.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Invasion of privacy, yes. However I can tell you of four girls I know right now that are on welfare yet spend all their money on drugs. Yeah I think they should be drug tested. Back when I knew those girls I was poor, NOT on drugs and could of applied for wellfare but I didn't. I think once you get on welfare it is usually easier to stay on then get off. So I did it and now I don't have much money, but I can pay my bills on time. Some people DO actually need welfare I am not saying that, what I am saying is if those moms I knew had took the money they spent on drugs and spent it on their family and children then they would of been living much better lives.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
The governers wife owns the company doing the testing?

That should be flat out criminal more so then the drug users. A corrupt politician taking advantage of the american people for his own personal gain.


edit on 1-6-2011 by wantsome because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
If the poor are drug tested and their aid is withdrawn they will rob to make the money up another way. With this recession in the UK, my son has been robbed a couple of times. He is a plumber and he keeps his left-over spare copper etc in the back yard. When he has enough he scraps it but it looks like someone is desperate as on both occasions there was not a great deal there. We now have a yard like Fort Knox which makes me pis--d when I have to get the washing in and out.

Corruption is now flaunted in front of the people by the State's personnel yet the State seeks to limit the people's freedoms more and more - one law for the rich and thousands of laws for the people I couldn't believe that your Govenor has not given the testing to another firm, surely there is a law somewhere about declaring vested interest and awarding family members lucrative contracts. Having silenced the Media this stuff is rarely exposed.

I cannot understand government's attitude towards drugs especially cannabis. I read somewhere that poppy production and heroin has increased since the Allied Armies have been in Afganistan. Nothing about TPTB and their drugs policiestoday makes sense. If you legalised it - because you know prohibition does not work, you would collect considerably more in taxes, probably know your users and could fund rehab for people who wanted help. It would certainly cut Court and Prison costs. Today's policies don't make sense. Also we know humans go against rules. God couldn 't control Adam and Eve over the Tree of Knowledge so our governments have no chance

With this testing does it mean a whole family will be penalised for one member's drug need if they are addicted. Will the Govenor do the same for alcohol? *I always watch the USA because what happens to you often travels over the pond to the UK.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by User8911
I would rather see my money go in the hands of a drug dealer then most companies, at least the drug dealer will put the money back in the system one way or the other.

Anyway, the main reason for this is for Rick Scott's wife to make money.


if that was the case don't you think at least one person in FLA would stand up and object? there are a lot of people with clout and positions, as in every state. people speak their mind. not everyone is asleep.

i must agree, no one in any way associated with the policy or action should be allowed to profit from this. the policy has good intent (won't someone think of the children! LOL) and it should have carried on that influence, not in personal gain. IMHO personal gain in this situation should be illegal.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ChrisCrikey
 


Why is it any different than an employer drug testing?

These people approach some entity and ask for money. That entity agrees to give them money with certain restrictions like a drug test. I don't see the problem. It isn't like we are just testing people randomly on the street. We are testing people that are asking for our money, and before we hand it over, we want a few ground rules.

Why should they NOT be tested? If I want to get a decent job, I am subject to a drug test, so surely it is not that much to ask of someone getting money for doing nothing?


Screening job applicants, most employers look for signs of hard substance or alcohol abuse. Long-term problems, habits that tell them this potential employee may not be whom they want to hire.

Whether it is for an employer or for a State, I can't agree that "pop quiz" tests are fair or morally right. What an adult does after work in the privacy of their own shelter is their business. Same for someone who is on hard times and receiving money from the State. Blowing off a little steam at a house party on Saturday night can be good for the soul. Adults are supposed to be able to enjoy adult life.

What would your employer do if come Monday you and 100 others where you work have to pee in a Dixie and 100 pop for using? Is your employer going to face reality or fire everyone and sit idle while they re-staff over the next 4+ weeks?

Government making everything illegal is not the answer. And we are quickly headed that way.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
This was looked at in the UK a couple of years ago.

Story Here

I also remember there being talk of social security money being payed direct from government to untility companies to avoid drug users building up huge gas/electric bills etc whilst at the same time spending large sums of money on drugs. I can't find any links to this at the moment though....

I think if wel implemented, in unison with well funded drugs recovery and support programmes, these strategies might have a chance of working. But when does that ever hapen? It should be about giving people alternatives, options, a path to being sober, not dependant. And if we need to be a little bit cruel to be kind, then so be it.

If only the trillions of dollars spent on the War an Drugs was spent on rehabilitation and dammage reduction I honestly feel the world would be a better place.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I have seen this too. Most politicians do this. I say leave the states name up and leave the Governor off of it. Anytime there are director changes in an agency, all current letterhead, etc has to be shredded and the current name put on. The second they step in the door. So most are egocentric.
As far as being a billionaire goes, you have a good point there. But maybe he owes someone a favor? *shrugs* But then rich people stay rich by taking every penny and squeezing it till it screams.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I agree with you on this for the most part.

But the reason they continue taking care of those who continue to have children is because many of these women suffer abuse. Many suffer rape, and many don't have access to birth control center. We take resources for granted ,but if you don't' have money, and you don't have a car, your options are pretty limited. Abuse is rampant in these areas.

It is a problem where more money needs to be spent. More sex education and far more clinics need to be put in to start solving this problem.

Now people who condone the drug screening, would you be willing to do that to help solve the problem? And keep more kids out of the welfare system?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 


If the states enforce it.

My state does not. We have people that have been on there 15 years. But I also used to do verifications from other states, that have that waiting period down to a T.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


I think more training, and support, and education are great tools that we could fund and utilize in place of Welfare. That is a much better long term solution, and I would support it.

The catch is, there has to be a penalty/reward system. It takes such a system to overcome inertia for some people (including me). If it doesn't start to hurt a little, then there is no reason to get up and get moving.

So, along with the better education and support and training, there also has to be that looming deadline or penalty for motivation. We can't provide the opportunities but then continue to support inaction.

There are plenty of cliches to fit. "Tough Love" or "No Enabling" We have to realize that our support is sometimes part of the problem. In my opinion the same goes for unemployment benefits. In my opinion 26 weeks is plenty. The longer we extend benefits, the longer it takes people to find a job, LOL!



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxPUSH0Noo
Invasion of privacy, yes. However I can tell you of four girls I know right now that are on welfare yet spend all their money on drugs. Yeah I think they should be drug tested. Back when I knew those girls I was poor, NOT on drugs and could of applied for wellfare but I didn't. I think once you get on welfare it is usually easier to stay on then get off. So I did it and now I don't have much money, but I can pay my bills on time. Some people DO actually need welfare I am not saying that, what I am saying is if those moms I knew had took the money they spent on drugs and spent it on their family and children then they would of been living much better lives.




I'm sorry but the "spend all their money on drugs" is the typical lie and stereotype that was first popularized by Reagan I believe. As I've stated, I've lived in a lot of hood and I've disbursed "recreation"...the only people who spend all their money on drugs are hopeless addicts. These people will be so bad that they wouldn't have custody of their children any way.

Your account I of the four girls I call "ducktales".



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 


If the states enforce it.

My state does not. We have people that have been on there 15 years. But I also used to do verifications from other states, that have that waiting period down to a T.




If a state doesn't enforce, their federal funding (their source) will be cut.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join