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.

 

Remember Florida's welfare drug tests?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


.... Except for this law, which was only created for the purpose of making gov Scott wealthy. He is the one guilty of openly abusing the system, but I can see you are ok with that.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


.... Except for this law, which was only created for the purpose of making gov Scott wealthy. He is the one guilty of openly abusing the system, but I can see you are ok with that.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.


I do refuse to see.. I refuse to see how 98% of welfare recipients being drug free is a bad thing. And as stated no one knows how many of those people stopped abusing in order to receive or maintain benefits. That number will never be known. Use pot for example, I used to be a pothead back in the day. When I worked a job that did random drops guess what? I did not smoke.. for two years. When looking for jobs I quit smoking for 3-4 weeks to pass the pre-screens.

You can't look at the 98% number and assume automatically 98% never abused drugs. The only thing you can do is look at the number as near full compliance to the new policy/law. There is absolutely no way to know the number of people who cleaned up in order to be approved for benefits or the number of people who remained clean to maintain benefits.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


.... Except for this law, which was only created for the purpose of making gov Scott wealthy. He is the one guilty of openly abusing the system, but I can see you are ok with that.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.


I do refuse to see.. I refuse to see how 98% of welfare recipients being drug free is a bad thing. And as stated no one knows how many of those people stopped abusing in order to receive or maintain benefits. That number will never be known. Use pot for example, I used to be a pothead back in the day. When I worked a job that did random drops guess what? I did not smoke.. for two years. When looking for jobs I quit smoking for 3-4 weeks to pass the pre-screens.

You can't look at the 98% number and assume automatically 98% never abused drugs. The only thing you can do is look at the number as near full compliance to the new policy/law. There is absolutely no way to know the number of people who cleaned up in order to be approved for benefits or the number of people who remained clean to maintain benefits.

No-one on this thread has said 98% being drug-free is a bad thing. We are saying that the tests PROVE that 98% ARE drug-free and probably always have been/will be, and thus no need for this law. But you would rather believe that because YOU cheated drug-tests then everyone else MUST be doing the same.

Don't assume everyone else is a cheat just because you are.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Yep, this is just another money making scheme. The trend around the country now is the randum drug testing just to stay employed. A lot of companies are emplementing random drug testing for employees. Educate yourself before you become one of the statistics in this new scheme. There are many foods and over the counter products that can get you fired from your job. 30% of the people that fail these tests are actually innocent! Only 1 out of ten of these 1000 testing facilities meet government standards. This money making program is ruining innocent peoples lives.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 


When you move beyond it's proof that 98% of the people who received benefits are drug-free you immediately ventured into the realm of arbitrary conjectures. It's okay to share your opinion, but you cannot say "proved" with arbitrary conjectures. Have you taken any philosophy courses? And is it safe for me to assume now that you are a small-government fiscal conservative? I'd hate to conclude your argument is politically motivated.

And who cheated? I did not take pills to pass a drug screen when I used to smoke pot. I stopped smoking pot!
, and when employed by a place that did random screens I refrained from smoking. How is that "cheating"?


edit on 16-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Don't see a problem with it.

Private business' across the nation spend millions, if not hundreds of millions on drug and alcohol testing annually. Hell, I get tested now more than I was in the military.

Beggars can't be choosers. You want money handed to you, you will fulfill the conditions of those doing the handing out. All legal conditions, of course.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Lol, youjr misreading the statistics, they weren't drug free because of the test, they were drug free already and passed because of that fact.


That isn't true. You are both reading the statistics in different ways and there is no way to prove which way is more correct. All we know is 98% of them passed, we have no idea why they passed, nor do we know what their drug usage would have been had no test been issued.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Lol, youjr misreading the statistics, they weren't drug free because of the test, they were drug free already and passed because of that fact.


That isn't true. You are both reading the statistics in different ways and there is no way to prove which way is more correct. All we know is 98% of them passed, we have no idea why they passed, nor do we know what their drug usage would have been had no test been issued.


I'm not reading the stats wrong, that's precisely what I said. The only thing proved is that 98% of the welfare recipients are drug free. There is no way to quantify how many people stopped taking drugs to receive benefits and no way to quantify how many remained drug-free in an effort to maintain benefits.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TamtammyMacx
There are many foods and over the counter products that can get you fired from your job. 30% of the people that fail these tests are actually innocent! Only 1 out of ten of these 1000 testing facilities meet government standards.


Care to expand on that?

What foods and over the counter meds get you fired? Do you mean they cause a false positive? What would those be?

Only 1 out of 10 of these 1000 testing facilities meet government standards? Do you have any facts to support that statement?

Please share.

edit on 19-8-2012 by riverwild because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You really shouldn't judge people like this.

You know, judging by your avatar.

I have a better idea. Let's stop wasting money on this nonsense and spend it where it's needed (hint: INFRASTRUCTURE!).



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You really shouldn't judge people like this.

You know, judging by your avatar.

I have a better idea. Let's stop wasting money on this nonsense and spend it where it's needed (hint: INFRASTRUCTURE!).


I'm not following you, sorry. Who was I judging?



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
wait, those lazy welfare folks didn't spend the money on crack ?

dang

they are just people like you and me who need a hand up ?

rats



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You said that it's not a bad thing for welfare folks to be drug free or something along those lines.

Since when it is your (or anyone else's) business what they do while they're on welfare? If they are doing something illegal, it will eventually catch up to them.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Since when it is your (or anyone else's) business what they do while they're on welfare? If they are doing something illegal, it will eventually catch up to them.


Appears it did catch up with 2%.

Point is; welfare money should not be used to purchase illegal drugs.
edit on 19-8-2012 by riverwild because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by riverwild
 


One thing that has been missing from this argument is proof that "98% of welfare users are on drugs", etc.

All we have here is speculation on the part of people who repeatedly choose ignorance over facts.

Unless you spy on the people who get this money, there's no way you can possibly prove that 98% hypothesis.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
98% are drug free. The thing to look at is that they are drug-free and they are still on welfare. Kind of goes against those who want scream and shout that the only reason people need welfare is because they are on drugs.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
We know the numbers are a lie they say they saved $60k but that only figures out to $37 for each bennift???? There's I think 3 million getting saaistance in Fla so none of their numbers make sense in any way.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


I had erroneously assumed that the person who stated such a thing still thought that the 98% of people were guilty even after 2% actually tested positive.

There is nothing glamorous about public assistance so please keep that in mind when you judge others who may use such assistance.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   



The only winner of the program was the states governor who owned the medical company doing the tests.


This was arguably the purpose of the drug testing requirements in the first place. There is no avoiding seeing the conflict of interest here unless one has their political party blinders on.

If this was a Chicago Democrat everyone would be screaming about the corruption, but somehow it's acceptable when it's a Republican in Florida.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaploink



If this was a Chicago Democrat everyone would be screaming about the corruption, but somehow it's acceptable when it's a Republican in Florida.


Just a little FYI. Scott was born in Bloomington, Illinois.

en.wikipedia.org...:



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join