Welfare recipients will take drug tests in Florida

124

Comments

  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,622
    Godfather.[/quote]

    How much does welfare fraud total?[/quote]

    check these out for a little info.
    Godfather.


    http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/01 ... e-welfare1

    http://fraud.laws.com/welfare-fraud/wel ... the-system[/quote]

    ----The second link doesn't have any info, really. The first one is based on asking caseworkers their opinion on who is committing fraud with the child care grants. It can only be based on a subjective sense, because the recipient likely isn't telling them that the money isn't going to a day care provider. It's pretty much based on the caseworker thinking something is fishy. The article also incorrectly references the amounts, saying LA county, but actually the amounts are for the whole state. Information is probably best drawn from results of work done by fraud investigators and then trying to extrapolate from there. Drawing conclusions about people you know or some guy down the street isn't valid. People do it all the time though and drives me nuts.
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    ...
    I was surprised that (if this passes) there are only two states in the U.S. doing this.

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state ... 65506.html


    "Florida would become the second state in the nation to approve such an undertaking, something Gov. Rick Scott campaigned on last year.

    A federal court in Michigan has struck down a similar law there, ruling that universal drug testing without suspicion of drug abuse was unconstitutional.

    Proponents of the bill say the tests could help force drug-addicted welfare recipients to go straight. Opponents object that the measure would force the poorest of Floridians to fork out money they can't afford to get cash assistance for their families.

    "If the state is going to go down the road of moving from a presumption of innocence standard to the presumption of guilt for only the poorest among us, it should at least bear the cost," argued Rep. Jeff Brandes, D-St. Petersburg.

    But the bill's sponsor, Rep. Jimmie T. Smith, R-Inverness, said the measure is necessary to ensure that state and federal dollars are being spent on families who truly deserve the aid and that those who receive the money don't spend it on drugs. And, he argued, student athletes, many private employees and soldiers have to submit to the tests."


    this is bullshit. drug addiction is a medical issue... and should be treated as such.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • EmBleve
    EmBleve Posts: 3,019
    catefrances wrote:
    this is bullshit. drug addiction is a medical issue... and should be treated as such.
    Although this may be true, some could argue that allowing those who are drug addicts to receive government assistance is enabling (if they use that money for drugs--which would be difficult to prove anyway). Even if there were rehab programs in place for those individuals, there would still be the ones who do not want it and have made it their chosen lifestyle. On the flip side, there would be the ones who were not receiving government assistance who may want rehab but can't afford it.. There's no easy answer.
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    EmBleve wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    this is bullshit. drug addiction is a medical issue... and should be treated as such.
    Although this may be true, some could argue that allowing those who are drug addicts to receive government assistance is enabling (if they use that money for drugs--which would be difficult to prove anyway). Even if there were rehab programs in place for those individuals, there would still be the ones who do not want it and have made it their chosen lifestyle. On the flip side, there would be the ones who were not receiving government assistance who may want rehab but can't afford it.. There's no easy answer.


    youre right.. there is no easy answer. however as someone who has held the lifeless body of her junkie boyfriend in her arms, i would say that addiction IS a medical problem. for many there is no choice, regardless of what the dogooders say. yes i chose to use drugs but that doesnt mean i can effectively choose to stop... and this in a society who thinks nothing of drinking.... legally.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • EmBleve
    EmBleve Posts: 3,019
    catefrances wrote:
    youre right.. there is no easy answer. however as someone who has held the lifeless body of her junkie boyfriend in her arms, i would say that addiction IS a medical problem. for many there is no choice, regardless of what the dogooders say. yes i chose to use drugs but that doesnt mean i can effectively choose to stop... and this in a society who thinks nothing of drinking.... legally.
    yes, I agree with the societal view on drinking. And, I, too, have firsthand experience with this issue and I think it is a psychological problem as well as a medical one. 'Effectively choosing to stop' involves a conscious decision and a desired real effort. Sometimes a realistic, tangible consequence is the straw that breaks the camels back. And other times, no intervention is going to matter.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,464
    EmBleve wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    youre right.. there is no easy answer. however as someone who has held the lifeless body of her junkie boyfriend in her arms, i would say that addiction IS a medical problem. for many there is no choice, regardless of what the dogooders say. yes i chose to use drugs but that doesnt mean i can effectively choose to stop... and this in a society who thinks nothing of drinking.... legally.
    yes, I agree with the societal view on drinking. And, I, too, have firsthand experience with this issue and I think it is a psychological problem as well as a medical one. 'Effectively choosing to stop' involves a conscious decision and a desired real effort. Sometimes a realistic, tangible consequence is the straw that breaks the camels back. And other times, no intervention is going to matter.
    psychological problems ARE medical problems. there is no difference. you don't go to a chef to treat a phychological problem , you go to a fucking MD. people can choose to stop but the parts of the body, the chemical receptors, etc, that are ADDICTED do not allow them to stop.

    treat it is a medical condition and sometimes people get better. if you cut off funding you might just increase that dreaded crime rate because addicts will lie, cheat and steal to get the next fix if they do not have any money. i know this firsthand as well.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • EmBleve
    EmBleve Posts: 3,019
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    psychological problems ARE medical problems. there is no difference. you don't go to a chef to treat a phychological problem , you go to a fucking MD. people can choose to stop but the parts of the body, the chemical receptors, etc, that are ADDICTED do not allow them to stop.

    treat it is a medical condition and sometimes people get better. if you cut off funding you might just increase that dreaded crime rate because addicts will lie, cheat and steal to get the next fix if they do not have any money. i know this firsthand as well.

    psychological problems are NOT always medical problems and vice versa. Addiction is a combination of both. And I didn't say anything about 'cutting off funding'---I advocated drug testing for those receiving welfare, that's it. And they will still lie, cheat, and steal to get the next fix with or without government assistance. ... and 'do not allow them to stop'....I don't fully believe that. And it does involve a conscious decision and a consistent desire and effort...
  • EmBleve
    EmBleve Posts: 3,019
    ...nor did I even once bring up a 'dreaded crime rate'. Thanks.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    EmBleve wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    psychological problems ARE medical problems. there is no difference. you don't go to a chef to treat a phychological problem , you go to a fucking MD. people can choose to stop but the parts of the body, the chemical receptors, etc, that are ADDICTED do not allow them to stop.

    treat it is a medical condition and sometimes people get better. if you cut off funding you might just increase that dreaded crime rate because addicts will lie, cheat and steal to get the next fix if they do not have any money. i know this firsthand as well.

    psychological problems are NOT always medical problems and vice versa. Addiction is a combination of both. And I didn't say anything about 'cutting off funding'---I advocated drug testing for those receiving welfare, that's it. And they will still lie, cheat, and steal to get the next fix with or without government assistance. ... and 'do not allow them to stop'....I don't fully believe that. And it does involve a conscious decision and a consistent desire and effort...

    I believe the point in testing is to cut off funding for those with positive tests, so this whole discussion is about cutting off funding. What's the point in drug testing for those receiving welfare if "that"s it"??
  • EmBleve
    EmBleve Posts: 3,019
    _ wrote:
    I believe the point in testing is to cut off funding for those with positive tests, so this whole discussion is about cutting off funding. What's the point in drug testing for those receiving welfare if "that"s it"??
    I had assumed that it was about taking the $50 a month or whatever it is for the drug testing was taken out of their food supply as was mentioned previously. If you read my earlier posts I said that I had no comprehensive solution because it is a difficult issue but "that's it" meant advocating for drug testing, and something done after that as a result of a failed drug test. But thank you for your hostility, and excuse the hell out of me if I was talking about something else..
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    EmBleve wrote:
    _ wrote:
    I believe the point in testing is to cut off funding for those with positive tests, so this whole discussion is about cutting off funding. What's the point in drug testing for those receiving welfare if "that"s it"??
    I had assumed that it was about taking the $50 a month or whatever it is for the drug testing was taken out of their food supply as was mentioned previously. If you read my earlier posts I said that I had no comprehensive solution because it is a difficult issue but "that's it" meant advocating for drug testing, and something done after that as a result of a failed drug test. But thank you for your hostility, and excuse the hell out of me if I was talking about something else..

    My "hostility"?? :? I guess you have no idea what my hostility looks like if you thought you saw it in my post. Thanks for your defensiveness, though, and excuse the hell out of me if I asked you a logical, objective, germane question to clarify your position... which I still don't understand. So I'll try asking a different way:

    You advocate for drug testing TO WHAT END, if not for withholding funding? For such a plan to be implemented, there must be a reason.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,464
    EmBleve wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    psychological problems ARE medical problems. there is no difference. you don't go to a chef to treat a phychological problem , you go to a fucking MD. people can choose to stop but the parts of the body, the chemical receptors, etc, that are ADDICTED do not allow them to stop.

    treat it is a medical condition and sometimes people get better. if you cut off funding you might just increase that dreaded crime rate because addicts will lie, cheat and steal to get the next fix if they do not have any money. i know this firsthand as well.

    psychological problems are NOT always medical problems and vice versa. Addiction is a combination of both. And I didn't say anything about 'cutting off funding'---I advocated drug testing for those receiving welfare, that's it. And they will still lie, cheat, and steal to get the next fix with or without government assistance. ... and 'do not allow them to stop'....I don't fully believe that. And it does involve a conscious decision and a consistent desire and effort...
    are you an addiction specialist? psychiatrists, who handle mental and psychological issues are required to have an MD or a DO after their name and require that education to get those credentials. if that is the requirement how can you say that "psychological problems are not always medical problems"? as someone in the medical profession i take issue with that contention of yours.

    a conscious decision is not the only thing that is required. why do alcoholics stay in treatment way beyond when they choose to stop drinking? because there are temptations and situational factors that effect their choice and test their will, and their bodies or minds revert back to craving alcohol sometimes. same as with narcotics anonymous. once an addict you are always an addict. pure and simple. there is physical and psychological addiction and they are not the same and they both require more than a choice to stop.

    requiring people on welfare to pay for their own testing IS cutting off funding to them. requiring the government to pay for the testing is the same ting as giving those people money because the testing costs about as much as a week's worth or groceries. so either way, no matter how you and the conservatives look at it you are "wasting taxpayer's money" on people on welfare. if you are going to spend the money why not just give it to them in the form of food stamps?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,464
    EmBleve wrote:
    ...nor did I even once bring up a 'dreaded crime rate'. Thanks.
    no but others have. i was not just making a point to you, but to whoever reads this thread.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    requiring people on welfare to pay for their own testing IS cutting off funding to them.

    EXCELLENT point.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,464
    _ wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    requiring people on welfare to pay for their own testing IS cutting off funding to them.

    EXCELLENT point.
    thank you, i'm glad somebody else realizes that.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • EmBleve
    EmBleve Posts: 3,019
    _ wrote:
    EmBleve wrote:
    My "hostility"?? :? I guess you have no idea what my hostility looks like if you thought you saw it in my post. Thanks for your defensiveness, though, and excuse the hell out of me if I asked you a logical, objective, germane question to clarify your position...
    no, I suppose I don't have any idea what your hostility looked like, and I apologize if I took it the wrong way or was defensive. I guess I caught a note of sarcasm, maybe, with your statement. :?

    which I still don't understand. So I'll try asking a different way:

    You advocate for drug testing TO WHAT END, if not for withholding funding? For such a plan to be implemented, there must be a reason.
    I don't have the complete answer to that. Perhaps if a drug test is failed, then those people should be monitored in a program similar to what a probationary program would do, and they would have rehabilitative requirements to fulfill, and, if they did not comply with the probationary conditions, at that point their funding could be revoked. Just a thought.. Again, apologies.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,464
    EmBleve wrote:
    _ wrote:
    EmBleve wrote:
    My "hostility"?? :? I guess you have no idea what my hostility looks like if you thought you saw it in my post. Thanks for your defensiveness, though, and excuse the hell out of me if I asked you a logical, objective, germane question to clarify your position...
    no, I suppose I don't have any idea what your hostility looked like, and I apologize if I took it the wrong way or was defensive. I guess I caught a note of sarcasm, maybe, with your statement. :?

    which I still don't understand. So I'll try asking a different way:

    You advocate for drug testing TO WHAT END, if not for withholding funding? For such a plan to be implemented, there must be a reason.
    I don't have the complete answer to that. Perhaps if a drug test is failed, then those people should be monitored in a program similar to what a probationary program would do, and they would have rehabilitative requirements to fulfill, and, if they did not comply with the probationary conditions, at that point their funding could be revoked. Just a thought.. Again, apologies.
    and my question is who should pay for this? the person on welfare who has no money anyway, or the state?

    nobody seems to be able to answer this. the position seems to be "yeah lets test those leeches and if they are positive cut off their benefits rah rah rah!" but nobody has a comprehensive plan for inplementing the program, who is paying for it, or the goal or the end result of the program...

    you people advocating for this drug testing are opening up a HUGE can of worms that you are all going to have to try to figure out. if this passes and spreads to other states you are going to see a huge increase in size and scope of government....and the tea party is not going to go for that.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • EmBleve
    EmBleve Posts: 3,019
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    psychological problems are NOT always medical problems and vice versa. Addiction is a combination of both. And I didn't say anything about 'cutting off funding'---I advocated drug testing for those receiving welfare, that's it. And they will still lie, cheat, and steal to get the next fix with or without government assistance. ... and 'do not allow them to stop'....I don't fully believe that. And it does involve a conscious decision and a consistent desire and effort...
    are you an addiction specialist? psychiatrists, who handle mental and psychological issues are required to have an MD or a DO after their name and require that education to get those credentials. if that is the requirement how can you say that "psychological problems are not always medical problems"? as someone in the medical profession i take issue with that contention of yours.

    a conscious decision is not the only thing that is required. why do alcoholics stay in treatment way beyond when they choose to stop drinking? because there are temptations and situational factors that effect their choice and test their will, and their bodies or minds revert back to craving alcohol sometimes. same as with narcotics anonymous. once an addict you are always an addict. pure and simple. there is physical and psychological addiction and they are not the same and they both require more than a choice to stop.

    requiring people on welfare to pay for their own testing IS cutting off funding to them. requiring the government to pay for the testing is the same ting as giving those people money because the testing costs about as much as a week's worth or groceries. so either way, no matter how you and the conservatives look at it you are "wasting taxpayer's money" on people on welfare. if you are going to spend the money why not just give it to them in the form of food stamps?[/quote]

    I did not say that a conscious decision is the ONLY thing that is required, just one factor. I am also in the medical profession and people other than MDs or DOs also qualify to provide care for addiction. Also, I am not a conservative on the whole regardless of how I feel about this issue. And I did not say that taxpayers' money is wasted on welfare. You seem to be generalizing me with others whom you may have had this discussion with.
  • EmBleve
    EmBleve Posts: 3,019
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    and my question is who should pay for this? the person on welfare who has no money anyway, or the state?

    nobody seems to be able to answer this. the position seems to be "yeah lets test those leeches and if they are positive cut off their benefits rah rah rah!" but nobody has a comprehensive plan for inplementing the program, who is paying for it, or the goal or the end result of the program...

    you people advocating for this drug testing are opening up a HUGE can of worms that you are all going to have to try to figure out. if this passes and spreads to other states you are going to see a huge increase in size and scope of government....and the tea party is not going to go for that.

    That is not my position as you stated above about 'leeches' and whatnot. I never claimed to have a comprehensive plan for implementing a program. It just seems to me that if people with jobs have to take drug tests, then so should the people who are getting money from the government. And, if a drug test is failed on a job, and the employee is required to go to some rehab program, the cost is covered by the employee in some cases. To that end, I do not see why a percentage of the person's assistance could not be used to cover the rehab program.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    EmBleve wrote:
    _ wrote:
    My "hostility"?? :? I guess you have no idea what my hostility looks like if you thought you saw it in my post. Thanks for your defensiveness, though, and excuse the hell out of me if I asked you a logical, objective, germane question to clarify your position...
    no, I suppose I don't have any idea what your hostility looked like, and I apologize if I took it the wrong way or was defensive. I guess I caught a note of sarcasm, maybe, with your statement. :?
    _ wrote:
    which I still don't understand. So I'll try asking a different way:

    You advocate for drug testing TO WHAT END, if not for withholding funding? For such a plan to be implemented, there must be a reason.

    I don't have the complete answer to that. Perhaps if a drug test is failed, then those people should be monitored in a program similar to what a probationary program would do, and they would have rehabilitative requirements to fulfill, and, if they did not comply with the probationary conditions, at that point their funding could be revoked. Just a thought.. Again, apologies.

    It's all good. :)

    Well I'm 100% in support of rehab programs, which I believe should be paid for by the government & which I'm happy to fund through my taxes. But I think they should be available/required for EVERYONE who needs them, not just poor people receiving government assistance.

    I don't think people should be required to take drug tests without a good REASON though - like if they committed a crime. Being poor is not a crime, and I believe the frustration me & gimme & others feel is with the attitude some people have that it is a crime. Imagine for a second that you are at a low point in your life where you're unable to care for your family without government assistance. Then think about how it would feel to be kicked while you are down, to be treated like a criminal simply because you are poor. How dehumanizing!

    I don't think the drug testing on the job analogy is a good one, and here's why:

    (1) For the most part, the rationale behind testing for certain jobs is that someone could get hurt if you are impaired on the job - like if you operate heavy machinery, for instance, or have people's lives in your hands. Even so, many jobs only require drug testing if there is some reasonable suspicion that you have a problem. Otherwise you are presumed innocent. Receiving welfare, however, puts no one's safety in your hands.

    (2) The other reason jobs require drug testing is because they figure drug addicts will commit other crimes. They're afraid you'll steal from them or sell their secrets if you owe/need money for drugs. Personally, I don't think this is a good enough reason unless you're asking for a government clearance or something. But my point is, the testing is not because the company doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on drugs; it's because they don't want to give you access to commit OTHER crimes against them. This is also not relevant to our welfare scenario because receiving welfare doesn't give you government access.

    (3) Receiving welfare is not a job. If the "receiving government money is like having a job" analogy were accurate, it should hold true for everyone else with a government job. But it doesn't. I don't see anyone else decrying the lack of testing for ALL government employees. I'm a government employee and I've never had a drug test in my life - but no one is up in arms about that. It's the welfare recipients who are being singled out and it's time to call a spade a spade. They are (generally) singled out because (as blockhead said) they are thought to not be DESERVING of government assistance. They are thought of as lazy freeloaders. They are thought of as more likely to be CRIMINALS. This belittling judgment of those who are less fortunate is the real problem that needs to be addressed.

    Anyway, my main problem with this whole argument about withholding the welfare funds of people who use drugs is that THE MONEY IS FOR THE CHILDREN. It's not the addicts who would be punished if they were cut off from food stamps; it's primarily their children. And how anyone can look a child in the eyes and tell her she'll have to go hungry because her dad has a problem... well that's just not something I can ever condone or understand. :(

Categories