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.
Originally posted by Muttley2012
Originally posted by TomServo
Where to draw the line? That's another discussion entirely.. But dont you think its pretty safe to rule out illegal substances? The bill wouldnt be pushed if there wasnt an obvious problem.
Where to draw the line may be a topic of another discussion, but I truly do believe it to be pertinent to this discussion, as I am of the belief that there is a segment of America that wish to do away with welfare all together. The illegal drug issue is only an issue because it is a way to get the ball rolling (i.e., something most people will support). However, as with anything the government does, illegal drugs use will only be the first of the eventual many disqualifiers that will be legislated and legislated until nobody qualifies anymore; thus, killing the welfare program.
In response to your 'bottom line', that is actually a federal offense "falsifying documentation". Basically you are lying about other forms of assistance you receive when applying for welfare, in order to qualify.
Am I missing something? What part of my "bottom line" included falsifying documentation? What other assistance did I mention?
The spokesman says Florida's drug testing law is unconstitutional, saying it violates the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure protections. Woah! Hold on a sec. First of all, I believe that by collecting govt assistance, you give up some Constitutional rights. 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In my opinion, this is Not an 'unreasonable search'. I have a huge problem with the thought that my tax dollars are being used to enable somebody's drug addiction, rendering them a useless member of society indefinitely. And you should too!! Furthermore, nobody is trying to "secure" anybody's "persons, houses, papers, and effects". As a result of these legislative changes, many researchers and program administrators began to declare that alcohol and drug abuse were widespread and would limit recipients’ ability to move from welfare to work. In 1995, one liberal advocacy group stated “welfare reform is doomed to fail if it does not address the needs of individuals with alcohol and drug problems”. National Poverty Center All this is trumped by the words 'upon probably cause'. Probable cause can easily be determined by recipients' records. If Joe has been arrested for possession, i see no problem with requiring drug tests in order to qualify for welfare. Jim, who has never been linked to drug abuse, shouldn't have anything to worry about. He will be reimbursed for the test fee if he passes. For the most part, only those who are threatened by this law would go through the trouble of filing suits. So, in essence, by supporting the movement to deem this form of drug testing unconstitutional effectively translates to supporting the use of welfare payouts for illegal drugs.
Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by Muttley2012
Income tax , as well as privetly printed money is " unconstitutional " how about we fix those few issues ?
Why are all those in favor of giving drug money to the poor so agienst puting measures in place that could help these people break there habit , rather then feed it ?
Originally posted by TomServo
reply to post by Muttley2012
The plain and simple fact is that you are voluntarily giving up rights.
Since you just now referenced the 4th, is plain to see that you have just now started to research this.
Nearly 1,600 welfare applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid July, but they aren’t required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test, and more than 7,000 have passed
Applicants must pay $25 to $45 for the test and are reimbursed by the state if they pass.
Originally posted by TomServo
I dont see your angle with this post. He broke the law and is paying the price. I dont see him asking me to foot his bill. There is the difference. Completely different from the sopa story. He is not on welfare, and he hasnt failed a drug test. I dont remember the welfare screening having anything to do with alcohol anyway...
Invalid point!
Originally posted by TomServo
In the end, the concept has the potential to improve the integrity of the welfare system. In the end, its a valid compromise between those who support and those who oppose.
Florida’s new drug-tests-for-welfare-applicants program just yielded its first batch of results: 98 percent passed [of those who took the drug test - 96% overall of all applicants passed]
Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who rode his own fortune and the tea party’s adoration to office last year, has stated publicly several times that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. So at Scott’s urging earlier this year, the legislature implemented a policy requiring all temporary cash assistance applicants pass a drug test before getting any help.
The Department of Children and Families says about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified, according to the Tampa Tribune.
The Tampa Tribune did some simple math and found out how much the governor’s assumptions about poor people going to cost the state:
Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.
That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.
Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.