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's urine test for poor people yields results

page: 7
57
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Test the politicians as well. They point their fingers at the welfare recipients while they themselves powder their noses with tax payer funds




posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
It's so easy to cheat a urine test. I'd not be surprised if the percentage was more like 20% with a 2% failure rate.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 



i am pretty typical for a West Texas resident. I have a rather, erm, storied past. Faking a drug test is so easy as to make the whole notion laughable. Honestly.

If you are to give someone money, you should do so with no strings attached. We should only judge the need, not what the need is for. That follows the principles of liberty, even though the entire notion of handouts if as unlibertarian as it can get.

Big, big thumbs down for Florida. With all those child molesters down there, you would think there would be better uses for public resources.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by starchild10
 

It's not Orwellian, or a slippery slope, it's common sense. If you think 2% is low why do you suppose it was at that level, did it ever cross your mind that druggies know they were going to flunk and didn't bother to take the test. Add that percentage and I'll bet the number goes much higher. So your answer to this is because they have families we the tax payers should also be enablers because they are addicted. Maybe, just maybe, the humane thing to do is administer a little tough love and push them to get cleaned up. Ever think of that you liberal fool.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
So Florida caught a whole 2,000 people on welfare that smoke marijuana or use opiates, the ONLY drugs that show up on a test. Drug testing is useless and an infringement on people's liberty in my opinion. In 1986 Congress did a study that found as much as well:

Drug Testing is Useless

Real drugs of concern like methamphetamine, coc aine, ecstasy, and virtually all hallucinogens will not show up on a drug test. Congratulations FL for getting the pot heads off welfare, have fun supporting the meth heads.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by skeeterslint
 


Everyone pulls up this bull# story every time they try to justify attacking the less fortunate in our society.

Have you considered that perhaps they've fallen on hard times? What they drive does not necessary define who they are or their economic situation.

Remember, plenty of suburban folks have had to get food stamps after losing their homes to foreclosures and being unable to find work.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bodcausailor
 


I really wish people like you wouldn't post on this site.

So much ignorance and intolerance.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


Actually the drug testing is for low income earners only, ie they are working they just do not earn enough so that doesn't make them lazy.GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann’s husband owns a firm that benefited from Medicaid to the tune of $161,000. Bachmann herself owns a stake in a farm that has garnered $260,000 in government subsidies. Is she offering to send in urine samples to ensure that her use of these monies is legal? No.

After the $700 billion Wall Street bail out, the stock market scions immediately gave themselves record bonuses that outraged the public — quickly pocketing government cash. Cocaine and marijuana use in the financial sector is known to be rampant, but there is little talk of monitoring how that taxpayer money was spent.

atlantapost.com...



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

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)


.Now maybe the other parent of the child will have a chance,Father's possibly.
edit on 28-8-2011 by Daedal because: typo



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBlackman
 


Conservatives hate social programs.

UNLESS they can profit off of them!



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I, too, was disgusted when I first heard Scott was proposing this. It was bad enough he was a major profiteer off of those heretofore condemned, shunned and shuttered pill-mills, but then he was going to make a buck on the other end of the game too. Talk about being the DEA and the Cartel.

At any rate, I knew this would happen. What I don't see mentioned - and I guess we'll have to wait for the stats - is the amount of people who did not sign up this time around because they knew it was in their system. What about those people who quit smoking marijuana (even though it stays in your system, you know it will eventually flush out and it's not like it's so addictive that you can't quit cold turkey - unlike another legal drug I'm very familiar with...cough*cough* - yes, that's a pun)?

My issue is that not only did he not save the state money, he actually ended up costing it more! Because now the state has to reimburse those 98,000 Floridians for their $30 each drug test. Let's not forget that the company (did Scott divest himself or sign it over to his wife again???).

So, the private company made money, the 980,000 who either don't use drugs or had enough gumption to stop for a bit and let it leave their system were hassled with a pre-payment they may not have easily been able to make (what if you have no job, where's that $30 gonna come from???), and in the end, the state paid out nearly $3,000,000...

Yes, privatization and an over zealous surveillance state are really a match made in fiscal-responsibility and civil liberty heaven...
edit on 28-8-2011 by Sphota because: oops, 98,000 not 980,000



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Way back in 2003 I was in an airport bar in Florida drinking enough courage to get on this flight to the Caribbean and I was taking to this suit guy who was also drinking and the conversation got around to welfare because of some story on the TV about medicare doctors abusing the system and getting caught prescribing drugs and expensive tests and treatments in order to get government money for the indigent patients.

Then the conversation went to welfare recipients using drugs and this suit was like that was a real problem. I was not very on my game but I said to him "maybe everyone who gets a government check should have to take a piss test just like I did back when I was in the Army. I mean if you get a check from the government and the government tests its soldiers why not welfare recipients and politicians and government contractors for that matter?

I swear it looks like the same guy I was talking to way back then. That would be weird if that conversation caused this law and the present controversy. That would be way out there.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by martianmallow
 


Umm... you are misinformed, or haven't gone through the "process". Last time I was on "unsupervised probation", they were testing me for THC (antibidies?), Amphetamine, Psylocybin, Cocaine, and Opiates. It's required that your doctor submit a list of all medications you are on, or you're toast.

What really blows my mind about this is that the tests they gave me (even 6 years ago) only cost $10 a week (or, per test if you were required to report more than once a week). I'll admit that at least on one of the tests, they are pretty sensitive and accurate. The rest I had no worries about, unless I ate an ungodly amount of poppy seeds.

$30 a test? That's definitely not made to bust anyone... just rake in money to someone's pockets in a short time, IMHO.

ETA:

Originally posted by Sphota
My issue is that not only did he not save the state money, he actually ended up costing it more! Because now the state has to reimburse those 98,000 Floridians for their $30 each drug test. Let's not forget that the company (did Scott divest himself or sign it over to his wife again???).

So, the private company made money, the 980,000 who either don't use drugs or had enough gumption to stop for a bit and let it leave their system were hassled with a pre-payment they may not have easily been able to make (what if you have no job, where's that $30 gonna come from???), and in the end, the state paid out nearly $3,000,000...


HA... I gotta go back and re-read that. I was wondering about that (you posted while I was typing). Cheyenne, Wyo. has a scam "Zero-Tolerance" system going much the same.
edit on 28-8-2011 by Earthscum because: added stuff



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Yup the economy is down the pan because of the wall street heist but we need to focus on low income earners who recieve benefits to make sure they're not doing drugs. Not providing policies to provide better paid jobs to get these low earners more hours or better pay, nope we need our elected officials to pocket tax payer money for all this testing instead....

atlantapost.com...



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
"He did however, manage to save the state $98,000 of the $138 million the program costs"

This fascist scumbag -- we could save THAT much just by firing this jerk.

His company makes $3 Million for the tests -- another "tax" on the poor. Since this PROGRAM is designed to put money in the hands of the poor -- that means this jerk off has caused at least $2,900,000 in negative economic impacts -- as well as being a douche.

But while we make this "more affordable" we spend more in an hour on corporate welfare than this whole program will save in a year.


>> "Discussing" politics these days, is like trying to argue against torture with Nazis. I might as well be explaining a rainbow to a dog. Pointing out that this won't SAVE money -- much less make this country prosper... forget it. The idea of "guilty until proven innocent", the reasons for a social safety net -- Socialism, is not and never will be COSTING too much, because it's money that goes right back into the system. But we do not even have a government anymore -- we have a PR agency with Federal Authority that tries to find ways to EXPLAIN TO US why it's perfectly reasonable to put 2 million people in privately run corporate prisons, fire teachers and bail out wall street.

BP will also NOT be spending that $20 Billion it set aside for the Gulf oil Gusher relief -- as the public furor has died down and they MADE MORE in tax incentives and breaks on the clean up than it cost them. Besides, the $.45 a day they spent on slave labor from prisons who were not given has-mat suits to clean up their mess, earned them MORE than it cost. Overall -- this "government" is working out for them.

Nobody went to prison, but I'm sure if someone pushed really hard to send their own camera down they would GO TO PRISON very quickly.

>> While these fascists DEMAND accountability and oversight from some poor people receiving a few crumbs of Federal Aide -- we've got nuclear power plants saving money by NOT having adequate generators if power gets interrupted. We have judges getting kick-backs to send more people to prison. We have ministers preaching hate while they visit young prostitutes.



The WORST, is we have people who might think "drug testing" the poor is a good idea. You don't care about drugs -- you don't care about their health or well-being, you just want to put a boot on someone's back while they are down on the pavement -- just so you can feel a little bit taller. There are so many people without compassion or decency now -- and they THINK it's OK because someone gets on TV and puts on a suite and says it's OK.

I'd say "you know who you are" -- but that would require self-awareness and a sense of shame.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
many things like shrooms and lsd don't show up on drug tests. for those taking marijuana, if the date of the test is known, you can get it out of your system, then resume afterwards.

i knew several people who told me they would get unemployment/welfare checks and deal drugs.

people should be tested, but the tests should be random and require the person to get tested within three days or something.

as for administering the actual test, someone should have to watch them urinate to make sure they aren't using fake piss.

i worked on a powerplant, and more than half the people there did some form of drug. random tests were given every week, and most passed because no one physically watched.


I would agree that random testing would be the best way, and supervised, and on the govt dollar. Living in L.A. you see a lot of welfare recipiants and I can tell you that some of them are on drugs. I knew a girl that did heroin while on the govt dime. I don't appreciate having to foot the bill so that some people can just keep living off the govt doing whatever illegal drugs, which leads to them not ever getting off the assistance. And for those that mention scholarships, if students are caught doing drugs they can lose their scholarships and loans, so you can't really use this as an example of other govt assistance not holding the recipient liable for their actions.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
How many of these were positives for marijuana? What a farse!



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBlackman
 


The 2% figure is rather low.

What we actually LEARNED here -- is we can have some Kleptocrat make more money than he saved the taxpayer with a bogus test AND we learned that the poor people don't have the money for drugs that the rich do.

If you drug tested a Golf Club you'd get more than 12% on Oxycontin and Coke. How about before a corporation receives tax breaks -- we test executives for "a conscience" -- I'm sure we'd find at least 10% were psychopaths.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 



Conservatives hate social programs.

UNLESS they can profit off of them!


Errrm I don't think that's right, or fair. A true Conservative is principled, and doesn't think it's right to "profit" from a "social program". Just as I think a true Liberal is principled, and doesn't think it's right to "profit" from them either. Unfortunately, there are a lot of hot air balloons out there just looking to snake a quick buck. Plenty of them claiming to be Conservatives, plenty of them claiming to be Liberals. They are neither. They are snakes.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
So.....does anyone have a drug dealer that takes food stamps?


This policy is the definition of 'conflict of interest'. Everyone is worried about low-income people 'gaming' the system but no one bats an eyelash when millionaire politicians (read: welfare pimps) get rich on tax dollars with schemes like this....


Assuming everyone that receives benefits is a drug user is a slap in the face. My mother is 62 years old and retired this year. Throughout my life we've been on food-stamps, government assistance etc. and, at times, she worked two jobs. I've never met such hard working woman. She never touched a drug in her life and forcing her to take a drug test would have been a special kind of offensive.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join