No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

reply to post by DocHolidaze


Yes, every one of them is a genius and figured out how to pass those tests, and because they are so smart, that is why they are on welfare.

reply to post by WildWorld


Except welfare is for a last resort situation. Most people receive welfare when they do not have means to buy food, and have no or limited income.

Which means that they don't have 30 bucks to spend on a test.

And when you are broke like that, 30 bucks means eating and going to work for a week.

reply to post by RealSpoke


This is in response to the poor thinking of the OP's comments as originally given.
Welfare checks are not a one-time thing. It is a continual drain on the state. So all of those that failed or refused to be tested only cost the state #30 each right?

What would be the average time that a person is on welfare in Florida, a few months, years, a lifetime? Start addding up all of these months where welfare will not be paid on those drug users and I suspect you will come up with a substantial sum that will dwarf the reimbursements to those that passed. Plus, that group of people would be the least likely to eventually get out there find a job and make it on their own.

Passing drug tests is easy with synthetic urine. this is only for the cheap drug tests that are used for employment though. The only drug tests that would be hard to cheat on are military/parole drug tests since there is someone watching you while you piss in the cup.

This is the "class war" at it's finest and the fact half of you seem to be joining in and wanting to trample down harder on the poor is very revealing.

Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

This is in response to the poor thinking of the OP's comments as originally given.
Welfare checks are not a one-time thing. It is a continual drain on the state. So all of those that failed or refused to be tested only cost the state #30 each right?

Drug tests arent a one time thing either. Also, why arent the politicians in florida required to take drug tests aswell? their salary is paid by the taxpayer afterall.

Forced drug test are not right and are a prime example of whats wrong with America, we have so many sheeple who blindly support them because they simply can't think for themselves and see the big picture. With the exception of a few jobs, they do nothing for workplace safety and are just another way for insurance companies to dodge liability. The only 'drug' that a urinalysis has great success detecting is cannabis. Cocaine, heroin(and rx pain killers), and amphetamines(meth included) are undetectable after a few days while cannabis can be detected a month after use.

Rick Scott is a carpet bagger who does not deserve to be governor of Florida or anywhere else. His drug testing program wasn't for the good of the people, but was put in place to help his company Solantic boost profits. He also has increased drug testing for all state employees at the tax payer expense. Whats really stinks about this is elected officials and their appointees are exempt for those drug tests.

reply to post by RealSpoke


The intent is not to demonize the poor but to make sure that we are not paying folks to be on welfare while possibly spending the money on drugs...it's that simple...and the idea to drug test people on failure was a flop...that's great too...perhaps they can nix it before we spend more money on it....there are plenty of good intentioned ideas that are a bust..bottom line this is what it all comes down to...who's right and who's wrong this time...you perpertuate this momentum of division...I don't like Obama but I don't want to see him fail...if he fails we fail..

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

If you eat until you feel "full" on carbs, it carries a much higher fat generating potential than the same volume of meats/cheeses.

Because you are eating more calories. Higher protein diets tend to lead to satiety faster than (refined) carb heavy ones therefore you eat less. Calories in, Calories out, the research bares this out. Your metabolism will also rise slightly because it requires more energy to digest protein. As for your explanation of how carbs are processed, this is not true. Starches are not created equally. Brown rice is not digested in the same way table sugar is. The poor tend to eat cheap food heavy in added sugars and fats. It's a stretch to proclaim it's all the carbs. I doubt they are eating bowls of rice and veggies. Personally, I went on low carb didn't lose a thing and just got sick.

reply to post by chrismarco


No the idea and the idea behind every idea like this is to feed the resentment that many have participating in social programs. They don't believe they should have to and feel they are being stolen from. So issues like this come up that play into that ego, they justify it by setting out to prove their point in this case, the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients must be on drugs and I don't want to support that habit. Now the proof is out their resentment is not justified on these grounds.

Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

The intent is not to demonize the poor but to make sure that we are not paying folks to be on welfare while possibly spending the money on drugs...it's that simple...and the idea to drug test people on failure was a flop...that's great too...perhaps they can nix it before we spend more money on it....there are plenty of good intentioned ideas that are a bust....

The drug testing program in Florida never had good intentions, it was implemented to handout tax payer money to companies that do drug testing, specifically Solantic.

Personally I don't think anyone should receive free money. Giving food stamps, housing, and clothing to those in need is a great thing, but giving people money for nothing is simply irresponsible.

Originally posted by spinalremain
Reply to post by jjkenobi

 

Does your employer pay for the testing with taxpayer monies?

I think it is you who misses the point.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

My employer passes on the cost of the government required drug tests to the consumers by offsetting the cost of the product. Either drop all the tests or have everyone tested. I am for equality for everyone.

reply to post by jjkenobi


Realistically we shouldn't be allowing drug testing on anyone for any reason. It is not in the people's collective interests to have them. neither are background and credit checks. They are all tools used by those in power to ensure they stay in power.

it was never about savings, it was about funnelling business to the wife of one the politicians who was an owner of the drug testing contractor.

I'd agree that it takes money to buy drugs and that is by far a perview of the middle class.

However, if there is a history of drug abuse, criminal record of abuse, then drug screening is valid, IMO. Before welfare monies. It beats both probable cause issues and limits the expense.

Originally posted by nwtrucker
I'd agree that it takes money to buy drugs and that is by far a perview of the middle class.

However, if there is a history of drug abuse, criminal record of abuse, then drug screening is valid, IMO. Before welfare monies. It beats both probable cause issues and limits the expense.

My feeling is, if we are going to saddle ourselves with supporting others, then we shouldn't make all these invasions into their privacy. Either give the money, or don't. But don't create a series of arbitrary hoops to force people through with the stated premise of, in essence, creating a bureaucratic hurdle that reduces the number approved.

Then again, I believe that as untaxed entities, this sort of charity is the duty of the various Churches in a community, not the federal or state governments. Should taxpayer funds be used for charity, it should be a municipal decision voted on by members of a community to address their community shortcomings.

Originally posted by boncho
If this system is in place it should be used for politicians as well. There is no reason they should be giving this kind of money out to companies responsible for drug testing under some moral crusade, as it's obvious it didn't save any money.

That being the case, all government officials should participate in the program as well..

I agree with the testing. And I think anyone getting a check from the Government should be involved. Random testing. Pop in and surprise them. Just like if I get tested at work.

It's not because anyone thinks all poor people are druggies, it because the ones who pay taxes to support the poor people have to be tested and think it's a crock of spit.

Or......just do away with the criminality of the stuff and fire people who are lazy and don't do their job. But we have too much dependencies on the Government taking care of every aspect of our lives that we require it's assistance.

Well that's no surprise, I didn't know the idea behind drug tests for welfare users was to save money... that's just silly. Can anyone explain how that would ever save money? It costs money to test for drugs, and welfare users using drugs buy them themselves, so... it seems to me that it would cost money.

Are they supposed to be saving money by kicking people off welfare or something to have them live on the streets, thus causing more problems? o.0

I don't understand.

reply to post by PrinceDreamer


The voice of reason on your post about the whole thing being extortion from tax payers for his wife's shares in the company AND good paying jobs are what is needed.

reply to post by network dude


Really, the money going to welfare recipients is not a prime target in my opinion. What about every government job? Those people are living off tax dollars too.

And while welfare recipients may not be working, they are not abusing their power either. I think one ought to have a more pressing focus.

This feeling comes up frequently when I hear friends in Gov positions and how they abuse sick time, lieu days, perks, and grants.

There are too many people out there that don't work and receive government money. And it's not people on welfare. It's people that spend 2 weeks writing a "report" that no one will read. Or people who stub their toe and are on vacation for a week.

Cheers.