Florida's urine test for poor people yields results

There is an article that has been around for awhile and its a good read (Link below). Basically, being poor is becoming criminalized and programs such as this are further fueling the belief that poor folks are lazy, scumbag, criminal, drug addicts. These programs are politcally designed to instigate anger in the good ole american taxpayer, I mean who in their right mind would want to see their tax money go to someones drug habit, right?? It is IMO, just political BS designed to back someone's agenda and fill someone's pockets.

Link to article
motherjones.com...

This is insider trading. This man needs to be thrown in jail.

How many of the 2% are MS sufferors ?

I do not like breaking the law. I do not like being forced to pay terribly inflated prices for an unregulated, uncontrolled product. I do not like having to purchase marijuana from drug dealers and I do not like having to use marijuana without medical supervision. However, I do like to walk, talk, read, and see. Marijuana allows me to do these simple, human things by controlling the symptoms of my MS. If I am forced to choose between maintaining my health with an illegal drug or obeying the law, I would choose to maintain my health.

- Greg Paufler, May 11, 1987, Testimony submitted to the DEA In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling and in Idaho v. Hastings.

www.safeaccessnow.org...

reply to post by links234


If 100,000 welfare receivers were getting $138,000,000, then if 2% of these no longer got benefits, then this drug testing program saved the state $2.76 million, a program that does work.

No, the state should not pay for drug rehab at $40,000 per rehab session, let them go cold turkey in jail. Each of them got to make their own decisions on getting themselves clean, it is not the taxpayer's job to pay for it.

reply to post by links234


If 100,000 welfare receivers were getting $138,000,000, then if 2% of these no longer got benefits, then this drug testing program saved the state $2.76 million, a program that does work.

No, the state should not pay for drug rehab at $40,000 per rehab session, let them go cold turkey in jail. Each of them got to make their own decisions on getting themselves clean, it is not the taxpayer's job to pay for it.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by links234

 

2% is hardly anything to cry about.....

now if we did all public servants I'm sure we will yeild bigger results

I have to agree with you there 100% regarding public servants . The suits in the office are not angels either .

Originally posted by chuckk
reply to post by links234

 

If 100,000 welfare receivers were getting $138,000,000, then if 2% of these no longer got benefits, then this drug testing program saved the state $2.76 million, a program that does work.

No, the state should not pay for drug rehab at $40,000 per rehab session, let them go cold turkey in jail. Each of them got to make their own decisions on getting themselves clean, it is not the taxpayer's job to pay for it.

You seem like an expert statistician. How much will the taxpayer have to pay while these lowly filth go cold turkey in jail?

For those with children please factor in how much it will cost to look after them while their parents do cold turkey.

Oh and how much will the taxpayers expect to pay to the paper pushers and laywers to arrange this.

Perhaps you could also tell us how much money could be recouped by making 0.5% of tax evaders pay up

All I have to say about this is everyday I see "poor" people that come in and buy their grocerys using EBT(foodstamps) then pulling out a wad of cash thicker then my arm to pay for the taxable items that they buy then roll the carriage out to the parking lot and load those grocerys into the brand new Escalade thats parked out side.I think that drug testing for welfare benifits is one of the greatest things I have ever heard of and I wish my state would do it.You sure as hell would see a larger amount then 2% fail the drug test here.

If I was on welfare I'd rather starve than bow down to this nonsense.

They have no right to own peoples bodies in this way.

As I say, just like I would refuse to work for any company that is tyrannical enough to think they can tell me what I can or cannot do with MY OWN BODY in my free time. I would rather die than let these nazis dictate my lifestyle.

I'll bet many people just decided to stop claiming benefits because of this. Thats where they are really saving money I bet.

Putting families in deliberate hardship in this way is an affront to basic human rights. Whoever voted for the clowns that are doing this should hang their heads in shame.

Originally posted by Makeshift
Maybe after testing positive they will be enrolled into drug rehab or decide to go on their own. Is that a bad thing?

Yes. Yes it IS a bad thing. Because... If They DON'T get "help," They lose services. That's what happened to My husband. They sent Him to a "rehab" facility for cannabis! The folks running the place said it was for heroin and coc aine and such. NOT for cannabis. And cannabis is what They will find with the tests - oh, and poppy seed bagels. (Yes, they really DO cause One to test positive for opiates!)

Originally posted by links234
A full 2% of Floridian welfare recipients, or about 2000 people won't be getting state benefits.

With roughly 100,000 recipients forced to pay for their screening costing $30 the companies in charge of the screening (particularly Mr. Governor's business) will rake in $3 million. He did however, manage to save the state $98,000 of the $138 million the program costs.

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results

ETA: I feel the need to add that I don't support this policy in the slightest, it's absurd and the results fly in the face of those who wholeheartedly believe that those on welfare are the 'scum' of the earth just taking tax payer money and using it to buy drugs instead of food or pay their bills. Good job Rick Scott, you saved your state $100,000 a year and increased your bank account by $3 million.

edit on 28-8-2011 by links234 because: More thoughts.

edit on 8/28/2011 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)

We are a nation of laws. we survive as that nation of laws because they are supposed to apply to everyone equally, without regard to race, gender, age or economic classification. But it does seem highly likely that the wealthy can and do get away with breaking the same laws that the poor do not, because there are no laws that mandate these drug tests on them.

So, this really isn't about right and wrong. It is about the state holding court over the poor at the same time the wealthy escape scrutiny. And to debate this inarguable fact as itself being either right or wrong opens a whole new can of worms about unreasonable search. What constitutes a reason to demand and search an individual's bodily fluids? yes, perhaps they do subsist on public benefits but is that in itself a key to their front doors? To their bedrooms? To their bodies?

I will not use this comment to take a position on the subject because I feel that perhaps deserves a dedicated thread... based not on economics and welfare but rather, our most hallowed rights as citizens vs. the right of the state to oversee our behavior.

reply to post by Makeshift


The government uses our money for illegal things all the time... So what's the difference?

Nevermind... Go back to drinking your kool aid... I hope it's grape flavor...

reply to post by skeeterslint


How do you know that this poor person is not a rich person who brought EBT tokens cheap? Or a rich person that traded drugs for EBT tokens.

Do you take the number plate of these big cars and report these people?

You know, I see a lot of "Why should taxpayer money go to these criminals?" Talk in threads like this. Here's my answer to that:

I paid federal taxes for 12 years now, and paid property taxes to the state for the last 8. I live in FL so there's no state tax. Still, that's about $17,000 I've paid to the state (where these benefits come from).

Now, earlier this year, I lost my gov job thanks to a service related injury that netted me a whole 10% disability ($264 per month). So, guess who had to go on unemployment? If you guessed this guy, you'd be right.

I qualified for up to $1845 of benefits. That's all. Paid the state $17,000, all I get back from that is $1845.

Now, I'm not a fan of pharmaceuticals. At all. But, I've got some pretty good pain as it is. So, I turned to a natural alternative. One that is now tested for (Lucky me, I found a part-time, $9 an hour job, so I no longer qualify for benefits).

The thing to take from this is: is it really that terrible for me to be getting a little bit of the tax money I paid back to keep me (just barely) on my feet, even if I smoke a little pot at night to take the throb out of my knee so I can be rested enough to get up at 7 in the morning and job search? Not everyone that will get popped on these tests is a scumbag sitting around shooting heroin all day and letting their kids wallow in their own feces.

Oh, another showing of Florida's war on the poor:

Police departments are now releasing juvenile criminal records (which are supposed to be confidential and sealed) to the Dept of Public Housing. This is causing people whose children commit a crime (any crime really, though in the article only drugs are mentioned) to lose their Section 8 assistance, which leads to them losing their housing entirely.

Way to go, government. Don't go after the things that need weeding out (landowner monopolies, organized crime, environmental issues), make entire families suffer because a kid has a little pot.

ETA: Forgot to link the article. Folio It's a PDF, so if you're computer's like mine used to be, you've been warned.

Originally posted by starchild10
I can't believe this is happening or that people on this sort of forum would support it. I thought we were against Big Brother? What business is it of others whether people are on drugs or not? Apart from which being hooked on drugs is a an addiction, a medical/psychological condition. So you would make the whole family suffer for this?
This is all so Orwellian. How long before you are refused welfare because you simply don't 'fit'? It's a slippery slope.

edit on 28-8-2011 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)

Well, for one thing, I don't like the idea of paying these lazy people to stay home at all. I would really hate to find I was helping them buy drugs.

reply to post by The Sword

Who gave you the right to judge people getting public assistance?

The people on assistance gave me the right when they took my money. I could use that money for my kids.

A wolf dressed in sheepskin that guy is. The drug testing program will never pay for itself. Maybe help those 2% out more and they may be happy enough to get off of drugs.

(poor people using drugs!? Are we under the same sun?)

Originally posted by links234
ETA: I feel the need to add that I don't support this policy in the slightest, it's absurd and the results fly in the face of those who wholeheartedly believe that those on welfare are the 'scum' of the earth

As I started reading your post, all I could do is read with sarcasm, and I contemplated re-reading it until I got to your ETA.

Interesting that this is the kind of thing that brought me to use the name "Earthscum" on my artwork and music. I have been what many consider "scum of the earth". My GF at the time and I took advantage of food stamps while we were in College. Funny thing is that nobody EVER gave us flack for it! But they would go on to mention "I hate (whatever kind of people) who are on welfare" or "Seems like half the other people on welfare" (do something socially unacceptable to that person).

Sorry to say, we're all scum of the earth. It's what we do. We are, on the large scale, a fungus that has consumed mass amounts of what makes Earth "alive". Rich, poor. Doesn't matter. We all consume, pollute, reproduce, and die. Some people need help, some people take advantage of it. Some people take advantage of the opportunities that the advantage-takers opened up. Dog eat dog, but the "bigger dog" is the one with the money, or so we think.

Welfare itself should be a temporary program. I was part of the system as a child, but not for more than two years. My mom ran into hard times after a divorce. It took time to get things in order. I don't know what time limit would be appropriate, but our society is rich with opportunity. It was during those days that my brother said he wanted to be a doctor when he grew up, after a doctor visited the poor day care he had to go to. He is now a doctor and I did alright too.