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.

 

Welfare Drug Testing

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



please enlighten us as to how this is 'different' ? i didn't follow her spending of her stipulation, can't say what she used it on, for or with but i do know she obtained it ILLEGALLY.

Sorry, my wife was fussin at me while i was trying to respond, and didnt manage to finish my thought.
Mostly, it is different in my opinion because of your words "she fraudulently qualifies to collect" and "she obtained it illegally". What you have described is truly a disgraceful situation. The response "we have to catch her in the act" is extremely frustrating. But, from my experiences, the govt will eventually find a way to get your money, especially if it is owed or was stolen.

Now, I want everyone to understand (as i have stated in several responses) that I support the intentions of the idea. Clearly, no state has quite figured out how to manage it properly as of yet. Fact: The welfare system is too loose and easily manipulated. I believe this is a step in the right direction toward proper management.
Some have stated their issue with failed drug tests resulting in indefinite suspension. NO, the article clearly states that a failed test would suspend qualification of that individual for 1 year, which i think is a little harsh. I would also be inclined to support a 3 strike rule here, with maybe a reduced amount received for the first two strikes. If you get pulled over with a 'personal use' amount of illegal drugs, don't you get a fine?

Some of the more recent posts bring up the idea of mandatory volunteer work. GREAT! My wife has a masters degree with little experience, and has not been able to find a job in the last 6 months. She is always 'over educated' or 'under experienced'. This got me thinking about a possible need for a non profit program, kinda like a temp agency, that would take people who have trouble finding a job, set them up with the experience needed to obtain the skills and education needed to do what they want to do, while paying them enough to get by. Sort of like shadowing someone who in the desired field. Incentive to the business or agency providing the training would be free/cheap labor. Ironically, just as i was thinking that, I saw a news bit about why employers are not hiring.

The unanimous answers seemed to be, 'with a flooded applicant market, we have the liberty of being more picky' and 'a large majority of the applicants are far under educated and/or experienced'.
I believe this idea would do well to be applied to the welfare system. If the govt is going to be paying out welfare dollars anyway, have them contribute to society, provide a path for growth, help increase the moral. My wife and

I work very closely with the local Adult Mentally Handicapped population. Most live in govt funded situations (some still live with parents). But guess what almost every one of them does... They Work! Jobs like grocery bagger, fast food, janitorial, etc. The point here is that they earn their keep.

Now of course there are a large number of those on welfare who are unable to work. Disability only lasts so long, from what I understand (If it is indefinite, please correct me). You also have the single mother of 3 toddlers. Special cases require special consideration. I dont see why such situations could not merit work from home training. Work with these individual situations to find Some kind of reasonable, satisfying condition that would initiate progress.

If such a system were implemented into the welfare system, that might even render the welfare drug testing obsolete...




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 


Thank you for sharing that info... Perhaps you should post a thread with the facts that you have just shared here, maybe it would put this issue to rest and give some conservatives some peace of mind. I know I feel better knowing this. Thanks for the insight.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by 0001391
 



If you want to regulate people's lifestyle choices then why stop at drugs? What about fizzy drinks, fast food, candy, lack of exercise, cigarettes, alcohol, watching too much TV, video games, internet addiction, gambling?

Do you seriously believe that anyone is ENTITLED to indulge in these things when they don't earn them? Regardless, the slippery slope argument does not apply here. Illegal drugs are... Illegal, plain and simple. What you have listed above are not illegal. Case closed!



So really what this is, is about a governor who profits on tax payer dollars to deny government assistance to pot smokers, whilst pleasing immensely that segment of the population that is so powerless that the only way they can gain a sense of self-worth is to think they are sticking it to some scum making lifestyle choices that they don't agree with.

If you have read any of my responses, you would know that I have a am also enraged by the conflict of interest as well. However, this one governor in FL is not the only one to attempt this law. That isolated situation, where conflict of interest is apparent, is merely a by product. The entire idea should not be discredited solely on that one instance. As I often tell my wife, who is very liberal, "apples to apples".

I know all about the history and uses of green... Don't think you are educating me here. I used to be a regular user. I would also argue that it should be decriminalized. But that is another argument for another thread, and Im not going to get into that here. As it stands now, it is illegal, plain and simple.



How someone ended up in the situation they are in is not your right to judge. Quit behaving like your whole paycheck is just going to some imaginary welfare queen living some grand life, high on "drugs". That's a ridiculous, destructive and hateful fallacy that you need to snap out of. Realize you are getting played by the big boys, not the people just struggling to survive.

As I've said many times, if you are not an illegal drug user, you have nothing to worry about. Only those with something to hide are complaining. This is very accurately answered by several posts above yours. One of my favorites is:


Are you implying that welfare is a civil right? Wow, just wow... As far as testing every applicant, that's ridiculous. Each case has a case worker, just up their judgement. Most people know when they are being scammed, it doesn't take a genius to know when you're talking to someone who is strung out.

Or how about:


You're right, no person is obliged to incriminate themselves, just like no person is obliged to take government assistance. When you start asking uncle Sam to pay for your lifestyle, you give him the authority to tell you how to live. Your parents had the authority to tell you not to do drugs as a teenager because they supported you, the same rules apply. But don't worry, it will never become standard practice.

Both by TheThirdAdam



You people who trash the 4th amendment and think your way of life is better than someone else's have a lot to learn.

For all of those who are whining about this being a violation of the 4th, answer me this. If the govt should not have the right to 'seize you urine' (LAUGHABLE), then what gives them the right to seize money out of my paycheck to fund the welfare? Guess what, I dont have a choice. Neither do you!

If you do Absolutely nothing. No banking, no money, no welfare, no programs, no job... Nothing. You have all the rights given by the constitution. But the harsh reality that i have learned, that you will learn someday, is that as you partake in these things, you lose rights.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TomServo
 


Point blank drug testing people for benefits is completely useless. Only a dummy wouldn't simply obstain from drugs before taking the test. Someone using coke only need a week and a weed smoker about 1 month.

Also, this would only open another black market, urine. Actually, there's already that market in effect. I have friends who work for the city and they have a market where you buy urine for $25 when your name gets called for a piss test.

You can't legislate morality...abusers will ALWAYS be one step ahead of you. Making the attempt nothing but a waste of money.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 



I've been on both sides of this debate. I currently work for public assistance, and in the past I supplied people with "medicine". Folks....people on welfare do not buy drugs! That is a terrible lie. People who buy drugs have jobs or are dealers themselves. Welfare recepients who get drugs get them for free from their boy/girl friends. And these are people who use weed. Crackheads do not even apply for welfare! In my 7 years working here, I haven't met ONE crackhead in my office or building! They simply don't have the tenacity to participate in the program, because as of 1996 ANYONE receiving cash assistance HAS to volunteer from 82-130 community service hours. Crackheads aren't willing to do this. Also, they rarely have custody of their children, a requirement for receiving the assistance. Stop all the lying....

I am genuinely encouraged by the information you have provided here! However, can you be certain that your neighborhood is not an exception to the rule? Do you live in a rural area? Is the 82-130 hrs community service a state rule, or federal? If not federal, what is the range of community service stipulations across the board? You also supported a thought i expressed in a previous comment:


If they are filing jointly for the family, dad fails, then mom qualifies and begins collecting for the family, fine! No problems. However, if mom fails also, sucks for you. Hopefully at that point DHR would come for the children.


Btw... who is lying and what lies are they telling?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
what i really hate about subjects like these is the fact that it wouldn't matter how wonderful of a plan to fix it all we came up with, it would never be changed for the better. I hear alot of very good arguments on this subject and great ideas on how to fix things so that everyone wins but the sad fact of the matter is that our government has no intention of giving our freedoms back... in all of my life, i never once heard of the government actually downsizing and giving people more controll over there own lives.

we could sit here and put our heads together and figure out a way to make an exponentially more efficient welfare system that all could agree upon, but unless it involved giving the state more money and more power, it would never stand a chance. so before anyone gets any more worked up about this, lets just remind ourselves that we are just playing fantasy politics and not get too excited.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TomServo
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 



I've been on both sides of this debate. I currently work for public assistance, and in the past I supplied people with "medicine". Folks....people on welfare do not buy drugs! That is a terrible lie. People who buy drugs have jobs or are dealers themselves. Welfare recepients who get drugs get them for free from their boy/girl friends. And these are people who use weed. Crackheads do not even apply for welfare! In my 7 years working here, I haven't met ONE crackhead in my office or building! They simply don't have the tenacity to participate in the program, because as of 1996 ANYONE receiving cash assistance HAS to volunteer from 82-130 community service hours. Crackheads aren't willing to do this. Also, they rarely have custody of their children, a requirement for receiving the assistance. Stop all the lying....

I am genuinely encouraged by the information you have provided here! However, can you be certain that your neighborhood is not an exception to the rule? Do you live in a rural area? Is the 82-130 hrs community service a state rule, or federal? If not federal, what is the range of community service stipulations across the board? You also supported a thought i expressed in a previous comment:


If they are filing jointly for the family, dad fails, then mom qualifies and begins collecting for the family, fine! No problems. However, if mom fails also, sucks for you. Hopefully at that point DHR would come for the children.


Btw... who is lying and what lies are they telling?




Well, I've lived in a variety of urban locations and am quite familiar with the societal outcasts.

The community service requirement is a Federal requirement. Each state every, I believe, three years must submit a proposal for how they will require welfare recepients to "work" for their benefits. We have to submit our results monthly. As a bare minimum we must have at least 50% of our customers successfully complete the hourly requirement or that states funds are cut.

I'd say 90% of TANF recepients are single parent households.

The people who are lying are the people who claim such things as welfare recepients having brand new cars and plasma tv's throughout the house. Generally making it seem as though they are living fat from receiving TANF! A household of four in Florida will receive a maximum of $364 MONTHLY...how can someone live large from that? Most people will not get the maximum because of such things as they have subsidized housing and foodstamps or child support. Any income or deductions cause the amount of your TANF to decrease. So instead of receiving the $364, most customers with a household of four get about $280. Imagine raising a family on that, especially if you have school age children.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Dude or who ever you are.. I'm a Aircraft Maintenance Tech , AMT, licenses aircraft tech or A&P of 26 years. I've been piss tested more than you could ever imagine! Urine & breath tested , randomly ,so they say. Kinda like Gibson Guitars,if your hip to that mess in the news the past couple weeks!
Screw these free loaders! Go home Illegal Visa fakes!!! And the companies hiring them...pay the price...they know exactly what they are doing!!!
I work with people than aren't from this country...97% aren't from here or licensed A&P.fruit pickers!. and it means nothing to these shady outfits $$$ in thier pockets every GDFD!
Now if do get tested and fear of a positive they quit and go to the next job with a hiring company and never have to face loosing a licenses!
A career that cost me thousands of dollars and years of experience, with a military background! If I get caught, I loose everything! The DOT can screw with us and we will never work on a aircraft again! But not them with fake back ground ID's which the companies...[and the companies!!!! repeat twice there folks], aren't responsible for cause they use these hiring agencies!!!!!!!! ex....... sts, plane tech,strom, tsi
A Topic that is never talked about... but you may think of this one day when your @ 35,000 feet and a engine falls off....
Oh me... that never happens...just kidding!
26 yearas making less $ than when I started....think about the Quality Control and Frank Lorenzo...remember Eastern AirLines? Alive and well in the new 3rd world USA.
edit on 9-9-2011 by Axis7 because: Does anyone read this far?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I dont much care for the way this ridiculous policy is doing flips and twists to circumvent the constitiution and the OP of this thread is trying to tell us how it's justified.

The mentality of the OP mirrors the mentality of the politicians. Typical right wing pseudo-religious control freakery.

let me get something straight with you. Never mind the constitiution, basic human rights are what is being steamrolled over here. You, I, your employer, your government or anyone else has no right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own body. If people on welfare choose to blow their money on drugs instead of food that's their own bloody business. just like the millions of alcoholics on welfare. I see no asinine attempt to control that section of welfare claimants.

This mindbendingly archaic constitutional error can be summarised quite simply. If you are employed by a company or are claiming benefit and they are forcing you by financial blackmail to adhere to their regime of what you do to your own body physically, technically this is prostitution. They own your body and control what goes into it.

Just because this nonsesnse is spreading and becoming normal does not mean it is acceptable. It is a violation of human rights.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Are you out of your damn mind, I do not serve in the US.Marine Corp as a Sniper risking my life so some lazy piece of crap can collect welfare on my tax dime and do drugs. I fight and serve for the hard working American's that are trying to make it under tough conditions and keep fighting to work and survive not so they can collect a free hand out and get high.

You and the rest should give your entire paycheck to these drug users you Love so much...wait many of you sympathizers are probably pot smoking welfare recipients as well...

We should take all of you and send you to Singapore and see how long you last...

sniper



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Axis7
 


Amen brother, in the Marines we are randomly piss tested all the time and I graduated from Stanford. In college I saw those that used drugs and the diminishing scholastic performance that ensued. They became lazy and flunked a lot of classes...

If your getting free money your should be grateful and thankful that all they require is a piss test. Most of you losers that condone this behavior should try this life style in other countries in Asia and see how long you last...

I am done with this thread cia (or as you lefties think of the military, back to killing babies and innocents) , it just makes me sick to defend people who are this warped.

sniper...



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


I totally agree with drug testing anyone who is on gov assistance, welfare, any of it. I had to take a drug test with all of my jobs. All kinds of people have to take drug tests to get work. Now i do know that people who work contribute to unemployment. But after you have been on it a while.
I think that it is a great idea. You take from the tax payers you can at least stay clean and try to better yourself.

There is no way this is going against the 4th amendment, what a joke. never did like the ACL. tom, in the original thread make the argument just perfect.!!



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
What makes the law in Flordia against the fourth amendment is that it is a suspicion-less search. (In Michigan on the other hand they only react if the applicant appears inebriated. That IS suspicion and does not violate the fourth amendment.)

Worse than that in my opinion is that the law in Fl is based on prejudice and faulty logic.

If you want to be upset about your tax dollars being mispent consider that Florida has a welfare budget of $10 BILLION dollars and only 140 Million is reaching the poor.

How about complaining that 98.6% of your tax dollars being wasted in red tape instead of helping those in need. That's the real problem here. (And of course violateing the fourth amendment by enacting suspicion-less searches, but i digress.)

If you want the facts follow the links at the end of my thread entitled "The Truth of Florida's Welfare Thievery."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

On a side note, how much drugs do you think they can buy with $134 a month? That won't even pay a power bill in most states. How about exercising a little of that common sense that you are so proud of and do your research before making groundless claims.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
So you're okay with the government egregiously violating the 4th because why? The victims are undesirables? Or wait, a kind of grade school reasoning about how you take one so someone else should?

So much for the love of freedom.


I'm for it because if someone has the money to buy a bag of reefer, or an 8ball from their dealer, then why the hell should I be paying for the groceries?

What about MY rights? Why are you so unconcerned with those?

It's absolutely no different than taking a driving test before they'll give you a drivers license, or being required to maintain good grades to get financial in college.

Personally I say you abolish the whole damn thing, but one step at a time.
edit on 9-9-2011 by PrimePorkchop because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by marinesniper0317
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Are you out of your damn mind, I do not serve in the US.Marine Corp as a Sniper risking my life so some lazy piece of crap can collect welfare on my tax dime and do drugs. I fight and serve for the hard working American's that are trying to make it under tough conditions and keep fighting to work and survive not so they can collect a free hand out and get high.

You and the rest should give your entire paycheck to these drug users you Love so much...wait many of you sympathizers are probably pot smoking welfare recipients as well...

We should take all of you and send you to Singapore and see how long you last...

sniper


Ha! And here we have a trained government sponsored killer (and proudly so) who criticizes recreational users of marijuana. The purple-assed baboons have taken over the palace!



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mudbeed
 



#1) Rick Scott's wife owns a large amount of stocks of the company that makes the urine tests.

#2) Rick Scott supposedly did this to save tax payers money. That was his lie.

#3) A whopping 2% of recipients actually failed the test.


I'd rather spend money on drug tests than spending a single red penny on a single drug offender to get free groceries. 2% is better than 0%, and i'll have my tax dollars going to eliminating them.

What you fail to mention, probably because it didn't occur to you, is how many NEW welfare applicants the policy would or has discouraged from even trying to get a free ride on the backs of hard working tax payers.

Nah, screw the tax payers, right? As long as you can feel like you accomplished something right before you fall asleep.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrimePorkchop
reply to post by mudbeed
 



#1) Rick Scott's wife owns a large amount of stocks of the company that makes the urine tests.

#2) Rick Scott supposedly did this to save tax payers money. That was his lie.

#3) A whopping 2% of recipients actually failed the test.


Nah, screw the tax payers, right? As long as you can feel like you accomplished something right before you fall asleep.


Yup, "screwing" the tax payers is exactly what's happening when 98.6% of the money which is supposed to be going to welfare never actually reaches the poor. "Screwing" the tax payers is what's happening when the government is ignoring our poorest citizens constitutional rights while the individual's involved with passing these laws are making millions and millions of dollars off of them. Yup. You used the right word. Normally I only use that word right before I start using profanity but in this case you summed it up pretty good.

How does it feel to be supporting such blatent thievery and graft?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TomServo
 


Have you ever considered that the people who are on assistance might have issues? Isn't that what the system is for? To help those less fortunate? I always thought so, anyway.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrimePorkchop

I'm for it because if someone has the money to buy a bag of reefer, or an 8ball from their dealer, then why the hell should I be paying for the groceries?


Or they can just do what the smart marijuana smokers do and grow their own. After all it is a weed and will grow almost anywhere.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_
I found this interesting for all those saying they are just targeting welfare recipients.


Under the law, which went into effect on Friday, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children. Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state's congressional delegation issued a joint statement attacking the legislation, one calling it "downright unconstitutional." And the ACLU has filed suit against the state for requiring all state workers to take a drug test and is considering suing the state for drug-testing welfare applicants.


CNN

So, they are at the very least practicing what they preach. Now what do the people have to say that were saying they were just targeting the poor?


I applied for a job at a local liquor store. It was right on the application that the applicant would be responsible for the costs of the required drug test. According to the application, the drug test would cost $50. So, where is a welfare applicant supposed to come up with $50??? Where is any unemployed applicant supposed to come up with $50?? I had to tear up the application, because I sure couldn't come up with $50 just to apply for a job. I didn't have any resources for that at all. And there was no guarantee of getting the job after shelling out the $$$.

If the government wants to do drug testing then they can at least pay for it.




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join