food stamp nation....

[RL...]

http://news.yahoo.com/usa-becomes-food-stamp-nation-sustainable-160645036.html

This editorial descibes how we are becoming a food stamp nation. I personally think that it's bullshit that we give out so much assistance to people. If you're broke, don't have kids and shit, bitches need to keep their legs closed or atleast take the pill or some crap. There is no reason that someone can't make it in this country, there is so much damn opportunity. And it's not only this, I think welfare, medicare, medicaid, and social security are all bullshit as well.

What do you think?

[-EnVus-]

I say they work and we need them but stricter rules...Must provide Green card,SSN,Drug Test once a month.

[ek forever]

Nicotine test and drug test every month and tattoo inspections every 6 months.

If you get a tattoo while on food stamps you clearly don't need the help. Hell, I know people with car payments and another guy who just turbo charged his integra and he's on food stamps.

I wouldn't care if we ended them. There are bukus of local food banks and churches that hand out months supplies of food to families on a regular basis. Almost everyone in the country has access to a charitable group that gives away food. Many soup kitchens all over the country provide 1-2 meals per week and a month or two week ration of food for families.

If we had absolutely no choice about providing food stamps, I would make them only work on rice, beans, vegetables, milk, juice, ground beef, and chicken breasts. Cannot be used for ice cream, soda, koolaid, candy, etc.

[Austin?]

I hated when I have to work 11 hours a days for 6 days a week paying tax quarterly and somewhere out there you hVe people staying home making baby but not working. They expect us tax payer to help them with there housing bill and food stamp. I'm going to find a link to what I meAn in a few

[Austin?]

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=Q5ocjZ9GatA


Atlanta people
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=VIlU2nZT_Hk
Check this out.

[bu villain]

I say they work and we need them but stricter rules...Must provide Green card,SSN,Drug Test once a month.

Agree with this except for the drug testing. There are definitely abuses and they need to be addressed, but I think many people are too quick to dismiss the good these social programs do and only focus on the bad.

[Browning151]

Agree with this except for the drug testing. There are definitely abuses and they need to be addressed, but I think many people are too quick to dismiss the good these social programs do and only focus on the bad.

Why do you disagree with drug testing to receive gov't assistance? Most people who have jobs that pay the taxes that support these programs have to pass one to earn the money to pay those taxes, why shouldn't those who receive those benefits be subject to the same processes? Also if you have money to spend on illegal drugs, you certainly don't need to be on gov't assistance.

[Austin?]

This^^^

[-EnVus-]

Yes places like here in Winder I know of way to many ppl who have foodstamps and use drugs. I've even seen some offer food from thier stamps for drugs in return.

[bu villain]

Why do you disagree with drug testing to receive gov't assistance? Most people who have jobs that pay the taxes that support these programs have to pass one to earn the money to pay those taxes, why shouldn't those who receive those benefits be subject to the same processes? Also if you have money to spend on illegal drugs, you certainly don't need to be on gov't assistance.

Although I respect your point of view, I disagree with it for several reasons.

Most importantly of all, I think it is an unnecessary infringement on personal freedom. We shouldn't require that people never do drugs to get help than we should require people to not smoke, drink, or eat fatty food, watch too much TV, or any other such harmful activity. I do however, support a company's right to perform drug testing (especially "for cause") but it shouldn't result in disciplinary action if it was determined that the person was not under the influence while on the job.

Second, many people on government assistance already have jobs (as stated in the original article).

Third, not all jobs have drug testing. It may be a requirement for many jobs but so is a bachelor's degree. I wouldn't propose you must get a BA before you get assistance either.

Finally, I personally know many productive members of society who occassionaly partake in some form of drugs. Obviously this is not true for every drug user but we can't categorically say, drug user = unproductive person.

A final note in regards to your final statement about having enough money for drugs means they shouldn't need assistance... A drug test doesn't show who spends money on drugs. For example, a person may be at a party and their friend gives them some.

[TheVengeance]

get your ass to practice Scott... ahahahah

[Browning151]

Most importantly of all, I think it is an unnecessary infringement on personal freedom.

How is it an unnecessary infringement on personal freedom? Being on gov't assistance, for the majority, is by choice. Yes, that's right, I said it's a choice. It's not a direct choice that one makes when they wake up in the morning, but more so a lack of choices that lead up to it. Don't want to end up on gov't assistance? Stay in school, work hard to qualify for scholarships and grants if you don't have the money to afford college. If you can't do that, learn a skilled trade, there are many ways to go about this through internships or apprenticeships, even during high school. Don't have children when you're 15 and have no means to support them. There are many choices made everyday that lead up to one being a ward of the state, it doesn't just happen overnight, nor is it hereditary. Yes, there is a cycle that has to be broken when someone comes from such a home, and that's partly to blame on parents and partly to blame on our abysmal gov't school system in this country, but that's a whole other conversation.


Second, many people on government assistance already have jobs (as stated in the original article).

Yes, and two of the people who are cited in the article are both single parents, one of which had a child at 15. Would she be working a minimum wage job at 21 and relying on gov't assistance if she had made the choice to either not be sexually active at such a young age, or had used contraceptives? No way to know for sure, but her chances would be significantly lower had she made better choices. There's that choices word again. I also think it's somewhat a failure on societies part in general for not providing better environments for young people to learn in, just take a look at tv, movies, music and video games now. The promotion of sex, alcohol, drugs, violence and living the "hollywood" lifestyle is pervasive, and it's hard to expect young people to make clear decisions that affect the rest of their life when those kinds of situations are presented to them at every turn. At some point it sort of becomes "the norm", this is where parents should step in, but sadly there are a lot of them who are wrapped up in those things themselves.


Third, not all jobs have drug testing. It may be a requirement for many jobs but so is a bachelor's degree. I wouldn't propose you must get a BA before you get assistance either.

This analogy doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, a Bachelors degree isn't illegal, it's an education. You are also correct that not all jobs require drug testing and if one doesn't want to be subject to such testing they can choose not to work for that company, just as someone can choose to better themselves and not rely on gov't assistance. Yes, I understand that people fall on hard times and need help, and I'm not categorically putting everyone that is on gov't assistance as riding the system, but those who held a job and had to pass drug screenings should have no problem passing one to receive temporary assistance. The drug screenings are designed to weed out fraud and abuse from those who do continually ride the system, not prevent someone from receiving assistance in times of need.


Finally, I personally know many productive members of society who occassionaly partake in some form of drugs. Obviously this is not true for every drug user but we can't categorically say, drug user = unproductive person.

I, too, know many people who occasionally do the same. I'm not lumping every person who may occasionally partake into the "unproductive person" category, but like it or not it is illegal and until that changes then one should not be able to receive gov't benefits while engaging in illegal activity.


A final note in regards to your final statement about having enough money for drugs means they shouldn't need assistance... A drug test doesn't show who spends money on drugs. For example, a person may be at a party and their friend gives them some.

If someone partakes that rarely the chances of them getting caught are going to be very slim, the person who uses regularly and has to spend money on it is far more likely to be caught, either way they made a choice to engage in an illegal activity knowing what it may cost them.

[ahabion]

I'm a product of the system of welfare and while I do think there needs to be a social safety net, there also needs to come more strict regulations in how these social programs run and work. They focus more money on regulating productive companies and auditing tax paying citizens than they do folks on welfare and government assistance. If I were president, I'd say cut it all and put your money where your mouth is. If you believe in a social safety net, then put chip in for that cause... cure for cancer... the homeless... Children's Hospital... government doesn't need to get more involved, its citizens do.

[bu villain]

get your ass to practice Scott... ahahahah

yeah yeah ... I'm coming

[bu villain]

How is it an unnecessary infringement on personal freedom? Being on gov't assistance, for the majority, is by choice…

Requiring a drug test is an infringement on personal freedom because it is creating an artificial (i.e., man made) disincentive to exercise the freedom of deciding what to put in your body. Of course, sometimes we must restrict freedoms for the greater good. I already stated I support "for cause" drug testing by companies. The value of a particular freedom must be weighed against the good consequences of limiting that freedom. That's why I don't begrudge those who are for such drug testing. It's just that my values lead me to believe the freedom of being able to choose what to put in your body is more valuable than the benefits of requiring drug testing.

I actually agree with everything you said here including that many (perhaps all?) require assistance as a result of choices. What we disagree on is to what extent we as a country should help people out when they make bad decisions. That is a valid debate to have and there isn't a "right" answer because it depends on your values.


Yes, and two of the people who are cited in the article are both single parents, one of which had a child at 15…

Again, I agree with everything you said here. Some people's values say someone who made a bad business decision and went broke is more deserving of help than a 15 year old who didn't use a condom and got pregnant. I actually feel more forgiving of a 15 year old making a bad decision than an adult.



This analogy doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, a Bachelors degree isn't illegal, it's an education. You are also correct that not all jobs require drug testing and if one doesn't want to be subject to such testing they can choose not to work for that company, just as someone can choose to better themselves and not rely on gov't assistance. Yes, I understand that people fall on hard times and need help, and I'm not categorically putting everyone that is on gov't assistance as riding the system, but those who held a job and had to pass drug screenings should have no problem passing one to receive temporary assistance. The drug screenings are designed to weed out fraud and abuse from those who do continually ride the system, not prevent someone from receiving assistance in times of need.

You can poke holes in any analogy because by definition you are comparing two different things. The point is that there are quite a few choices people can make that affect their ability to get jobs. We can't and shouldn't test for them all and I am not convinced that failing drug tests is why a significant portion of those getting government assistance can't get jobs. If you could show me some statistics that failed drug testing is a major factor then I may be persuaded to change my mind.



I, too, know many people who occasionally do the same. I'm not lumping every person who may occasionally partake into the "unproductive person" category, but like it or not it is illegal and until that changes then one should not be able to receive gov't benefits while engaging in illegal activity.

But you are only singling out one illegal activity. As I stated before, I have not seen evidence that makes me believe drug testing would lead to a significant increase in the number of people getting off assistance. Further, this does nothing to address the large number of people who already do have jobs but are still on assistance.



If someone partakes that rarely the chances of them getting caught are going to be very slim, the person who uses regularly and has to spend money on it is far more likely to be caught, either way they made a choice to engage in an illegal activity knowing what it may cost them.

Depends on how you define slim. Some drugs can stay in your system for weeks. On the other hand, if you know you have to take a drug test, people can simply stop in order to pass the test and start using again immediately after. So you will mostly be stopping addicts from getting government assistance. Addiction is a severe enough problem that withholding food stamps is probably not gonna get them to quit anyways.

[RL...]

Browning has a very smart brain in that head of his.

The bottom line is this, they should be drug tested because if they are stupid enough to be using drugs and get tested positive, then that automatically proves that they are using drugs, and thus probably buying them, which also means that the money they get for food allows them to save their cash for drugs! Which is 100% bullshit. Who gives a fuck if you think drugs are good or bad it doesnt matter either way here, why should Joe crackhead get to receive government assistance to buy food just so he can save his cash from his paycheck for extracurricular activities!? Would drug testing prevent everyone who uses from getting assistance, no thats impossible, but its a step in the right direction.

Also, if you are receiving gov. aid, then I think your rights to freedom should def not matter when it comes to getting drug tested. It is a choice, and if you choose to accept help then you choose to give up a little bit of freedom so your sobriety can be verified. You can't have it both ways.

Honestly, this is the real world and it is not fair. If you made bad decisions that led to you being unable to support yourself, I would have it to where you do get gov. help, but the absolute minimum you need to survive. That way there would be no way to abuse the program.

[-EnVus-]

Browning has a very smart brain in that head of his.

The bottom line is this, they should be drug tested because if they are stupid enough to be using drugs and get tested positive, then that automatically proves that they are using drugs, and thus probably buying them, which also means that the money they get for food allows them to save their cash for drugs! Which is 100% bullshit. Who gives a fuck if you think drugs are good or bad it doesnt matter either way here, why should Joe crackhead get to receive government assistance to buy food just so he can save his cash from his paycheck for extracurricular activities!? Would drug testing prevent everyone who uses from getting assistance, no thats impossible, but its a step in the right direction.
No a Drug test wouldn't do a lot of cuts for the right ones who deserve assistance but if they required a intelligence test they would save Billions LOL!

[RL...]

If the people were intelligent they wouldnt need food stamps in the first place. There is a correlation between income and intelligence....jus sayin

[-EnVus-]

When I think of welfare I always think of this scene... I lmao at dude with cane at 1:30 mark Lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCWl5VH83qE

[Humphrizzle]

If the people were intelligent they wouldnt need food stamps in the first place. There is a correlation between income and intelligence....jus sayin


you're right. there is a direct correlation between the two but you cannot regulate a society's intelligence. face it. some people need the help from the government. its not as if everyone on food stamps is just sitting at home having babies and doing nothing. just the ones who abuse the system tarnish the great help the government allows.

[i'm employed and dont accept food stamps]

[Elbow]

you're right. there is a direct correlation between the two but you cannot regulate a society's intelligence. face it. some people need the help from the government. its not as if everyone on food stamps is just sitting at home having babies and doing nothing. just the ones who abuse the system tarnish the great help the government allows.

[i'm employed and dont accept food stamps]

This.

I am all for strict guidelines to accepting government aid though. Especially drug tests, I also say an official inspects your home frequently. I thought to get food stamps you can't have a certain amount of items in your home worth over X amount of dollars? Anyway, drug tests, if you have kids check their well being, no new cars, no rimzzz, etc. I don't think the government offering aid to those in need is bad, it's offering help to the lazy which is ruining the system.

[bu villain]

...I also say an official inspects your home frequently. I thought to get food stamps you can't have a certain amount of items in your home worth over X amount of dollars? ... if you have kids check their well being, no new cars, no rimzzz, etc.

These things make much more sense to me than drug tests. If you are really worried about people having too much money and still getting assistance, drug testing seems like a really innefective way of trying to figure that out. Why not also search their homes for receipts for nice restaurants or other "misuses" of money.

Can we put moral outrage to the side for a minute and get a little more practical. How much will it cost to perform millions of drug tests every month? Is there any good evidence to suggest drug use is actually a major problem with getting off food stamps? Maybe there is evidence but I don't condone making policy based on ancedotal evidence which is all that has been presented so far here.

[bu villain]

...The bottom line is this, they should be drug tested because if they are stupid enough to be using drugs and get tested positive, then that automatically proves that they are using drugs, and thus probably buying them, which also means that the money they get for food allows them to save their cash for drugs! Which is 100% bullshit.

This is really shallow thinking. It can be summed up as: Drug users who get caught are stupid and stupid people don't deserve help. Furthermore, you give no consideration to the cost or effectiveness of trying to implement it. This sort of thinking is just an appeal to basic moral outrage, nothing more.

[BanginJimmy]

Drug users who get caught are stupid and stupid people don't deserve help.

I completely agree with this statement when you limit it to those that use drugs or are multi offending criminals. Both of these situations are proof you are not making an attempt to become a productive member of society.



Furthermore, you give no consideration to the cost or effectiveness of trying to implement it.

The cost is negligible.

http://www.medicaldisposables.us/product.php?productid=79&cat=3&page=1


Implementing it is easy. These types of cups are designed in a way that you dont need any kind of special training to use them and read them correctly. Come in to pick up your check, piss in the cup and pass, you get your check. Fail the test you are asked to leave. Want to bring your kids into the equation? That works too, DCFS can meet you at your apartment or house to discuss the ramifications on your kids.




This sort of thinking is just an appeal to basic moral outrage, nothing more.

It is an outrage that people think the govt should take away my money just to hand it over to a junkie who will use it on drugs instead of its intended purpose.

[bu villain]

I completely agree with this statement when you limit it to those that use drugs or are multi offending criminals. Both of these situations are proof you are not making an attempt to become a productive member of society.

I disagree that drug use is proof of not making an attempt to be a productive member of society. If you know even one productive member of society who uses drugs then you invalidate that conclusion. Further, I disagree the purpose of the program is only to help feed those who "attempt to become a productive member of society."


The cost is negligible.

http://www.medicaldisposables.us/product.php?productid=79&cat=3&page=1


Neglibible? $10 * 40 million people = 400 million dollars EVERY month! (not counting biological waste disposal and administrative time). It's no foreign war but people argue over a lot less. The average person receives about $130/month in food assistance so that extra cost is nearly 10% of the benefit.

data source: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm


Implementing it is easy. These types of cups are designed in a way that you dont need any kind of special training to use them and read them correctly...

Easy if you don't care about false positives and safe disposal. Then again "easy" is a relative term so it's pointless to argue about semantics.


It is an outrage that people think the govt should take away my money just to hand it over to a junkie who will use it on drugs instead of its intended purpose.

Failing a drug test doesn't make you a junkie. Nor does it prove you spent that money on drugs. I'm not saying it never happens but you need to present evidence if I am to accept your conclusion that it is wide spread (let alone the 100% correlation you imply).

[BanginJimmy]

I disagree that drug use is proof of not making an attempt to be a productive member of society. If you know even one productive member of society who uses drugs then you invalidate that conclusion. Further, I disagree the purpose of the program is only to help feed those who "attempt to become a productive member of society."

Just smoking a blunt doesnt mean anything. Smoking a blunt, while you are sucking the govt tit because you cannot find a decent job, does show you are making no attempt to better your position.




Neglibible? $10 * 40 million people = 400 million dollars EVERY month! (not counting biological waste disposal and administrative time). It's no foreign war but people argue over a lot less. The average person receives about $130/month in food assistance so that extra cost is nearly 10% of the benefit.

data source: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm

You you notice, when you purchase larger quantities the price goes down nearly 50%. I have also never said anything about testing everyone every month. I believe in random testing based off the last 2 numbers of your SSN or tax ID.

What biological waste costs? Dump the piss down the toilet, rinse the cup and toss it in the trash. The administrative time is about 10 minutes.



[QUOTE=bu villain;39303318]Easy if you don't care about false positives and safe disposal. Then again "easy" is a relative term so it's pointless to argue about semantics.

False positives can happen even in a lab. A simple fail safe can be to use half of the urine for the actual test and the other half to send off to the lab in the even of a positive reading.




Failing a drug test doesn't make you a junkie. Nor does it prove you spent that money on drugs. I'm not saying it never happens but you need to present evidence if I am to accept your conclusion that it is wide spread (let alone the 100% correlation you imply).

Failing a drug test that you are is coming makes you a junkie. Directly, selling stamps for drugs, or indirectly, using cash to buy drugs instead of food, you are still using the govt to subsidize your drugs. So yes, there is a 100% correlation.

[bu villain]

Just smoking a blunt doesnt mean anything. Smoking a blunt, while you are sucking the govt tit because you cannot find a decent job, does show you are making no attempt to better your position.

What if you are smoking a blunt after your third job interview of the day? Or replace "blunt" with "beer". Is that really the difference between being a guy just down on his luck and being a lazy lowlife junkie?


You you notice, when you purchase larger quantities the price goes down nearly 50%. I have also never said anything about testing everyone every month. I believe in random testing based off the last 2 numbers of your SSN or tax ID. What biological waste costs? Dump the piss down the toilet, rinse the cup and toss it in the trash. The administrative time is about 10 minutes.

Sure cost per test could be decreased but you must also account for the cost of administration (10 minutes per test you say) and the water costs for millions of extra toilet flushes, paying people to wash out the cups, trash costs for millions of tests. These are all small things that add up to significant money when you are talking about millions of tests performed every month. Btw, I feel sorry for the person who has to wash piss out of cups for a living haha.


False positives can happen even in a lab. A simple fail safe can be to use half of the urine for the actual test and the other half to send off to the lab in the even of a positive reading.

Absolutely, but now you are adding another layer of costs. I never meant to imply drug testing can not be done. I simply want to see a good/cost benefit analysis that includes all the costs. You can't just ignore these costs by saying "they are negligible" without any analysis and furthermore, you haven't given any proof of a significant benefit beyond your personal moral argument. I am willing to be convinced but you have to offer more than opinion and sweeping generalizations.


Failing a drug test that you are is coming makes you a junkie. Directly, selling stamps for drugs, or indirectly, using cash to buy drugs instead of food, you are still using the govt to subsidize your drugs. So yes, there is a 100% correlation.

Either the tests are randomly performed on a small portion of the population so people don't know they are coming or you do it to everyone on some regular basis in which case costs will be much higher. You can't argue both ways.

In the end, if some drug users kids can still get some food subsidies even if it also subsidizes some people's drug habits, I can live with that. It's the problem with living in the real world instead of a moral meritocracy.

[Browning151]

My issue with the drug tests has very little to do with moral outrage and more to do with A) Engaging in an illegal activity while on gov't assistance and B) Using money for a "luxury" item while on gov't assistance. If smoking marijuana was legal, I'd have no issue with people using it aside from the fact that it would still be a "luxury", not a necessity. I feel like gov't assistance programs should be a last resort for someone to be able to survive and/or support their family, i.e. if you have cut off your cable/satellite tv, home internet, cell phones, quit smoking, quit drinking etc, then you should be able to qualify to receive temporary assistance to help you get by. These programs should provide for the basic needs to live, period, nothing more nothing less. You don't need to watch pay tv, surf the internet, talk on your cell phone, smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol to survive. If you have the money to do those things then you are not at the point where money needs to be taken away from anyone else to support you, you need to evaluate your priorities and focus your money on surviving, if you have done that and there is still just absolutely no way that you can survive then I have no problem with a temporary safety net for people.

[Elbow]

These things make much more sense to me than drug tests. If you are really worried about people having too much money and still getting assistance, drug testing seems like a really innefective way of trying to figure that out. Why not also search their homes for receipts for nice restaurants or other "misuses" of money.

Can we put moral outrage to the side for a minute and get a little more practical. How much will it cost to perform millions of drug tests every month? Is there any good evidence to suggest drug use is actually a major problem with getting off food stamps? Maybe there is evidence but I don't condone making policy based on ancedotal evidence which is all that has been presented so far here.

I wouldn't be mad about drug use from a "drugs are bad" standard but if you're accepting funding from the government you don't need to be doing drugs, I don't care if it's just smoking weed. It's not only misusing the support but it's a slap in the face to tax payers and government officials.

You're right though the costs of drug testing would probably be too costly to be effective.

[bu villain]

Browning and Simon,

I completely understand where you are both coming from. I am not excited about the prospect of paying for "luxuries" either. But the fact is, people seem to be singling out this one luxury as the best way to prevent abuse in general and I can't figure out why. What is so special about this one particular "luxury"? Why hasn't anyone suggested "rim inspections" since apparently people seem to think rims are also common abuse. Rims cost a hell of a lot more than a blunt too. To me the fact that drugs are illegal is irrelevant because the food stamp program should focus on feeding people, not enforcing drug laws.

[Elbow]

Browning and Simon,

I completely understand where you are both coming from. I am not excited about the prospect of paying for "luxuries" either. But the fact is, people seem to be singling out this one luxury as the best way to prevent abuse in general and I can't figure out why. What is so special about this one particular "luxury"? Why hasn't anyone suggested "rim inspections" since apparently people seem to think rims are also common abuse. Rims cost a hell of a lot more than a blunt too. To me the fact that drugs are illegal is irrelevant because the food stamp program should focus on feeding people, not enforcing drug laws.

I said both, I would honestly much rather see them inspect homes and vehicles than look for a little joint, I don't care if they smoke, I care if they get sick from it and end up benefiting medically as well but that's not really the point right now. I say if you get benefits, you have strict restrictions to what you can own meaning no PS3, no rimzzzzz, no $1000 systems, etc. If you have all that, sell it to try and get out of your slum. A huge majority in this country have their priorities completely mixed up.

[Total_Blender]

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/28/business-us-welfare-drug-testing_8704912.html

Out of the 2.5% who failed the drug test I wonder how many are addicts who would quit using drugs if they were offered access to treatment. Or casual users who got the drugs for free from friends/neighbors/family, etc. The facts are drugs cost money and poor people don't have money. Theres probably more psychoactive drugs in the Florida General Assembly's collective bloodstream than a sample of randomly selected welfare recipients of equal size. I mean this is Florida... they have a law that forbids doctors from limiting you to generic scrips. If you ask for vicodin or oxycontin instead of the generic the doctor legally has to write you out a scrip for it.

Thats what gets me... discussions of crime among conservatives are always limited to the poor and working class. Meanwhile its the high rollers getting the tax breaks who are partying with hookers & blow. The cons just turn a blind eye to fraud and abuse if its white collar.

[BanginJimmy]

Out of the 2.5% who failed the drug test I wonder how many are addicts who would quit using drugs if they were offered access to treatment.

Even if it is 1% of all positive tests, wouldnt this make the testing worth it? The real number is 2.5% of the 2000 tested, and another 2% who refused to take the test, which means they likely would have failed also. 4.5%, or 90 of the 2000 people is a significant number representing a LOT of money none of the states have.





Or casual users who got the drugs for free from friends/neighbors/family, etc.


If these people are getting caught they deserve double the punishment. An addict needs help to overcome the addiction. A casual user that knows he/she may be tested is just ignorant.



The facts are drugs cost money and poor people don't have money.

According to the article, the Justice Dept. estimates that 6% of Americans 12+ use drugs. Since 4.5% of welfare sponges in Florida use drugs, I would say the program is disproving that the parasites are too broke to buy drugs.




Theres probably more psychoactive drugs in the Florida General Assembly's collective bloodstream than a sample of randomly selected welfare recipients of equal size.

I would assume those drugs are taken more by those that opposed this law based on the fact that supporters said to bring on the tests while those opposed danced around it.




I mean this is Florida... they have a law that forbids doctors from limiting you to generic scrips. If you ask for vicodin or oxycontin instead of the generic the doctor legally has to write you out a scrip for it.

Just wait until Obamacare takes effect and regulations like this are the norm. The only difference is that under Obamacare, it will be a govt bureaucrat that approves what your doc prescribes, not you or your doc.



Thats what gets me... discussions of crime among conservatives are always limited to the poor and working class. Meanwhile its the high rollers getting the tax breaks who are partying with hookers & blow. The cons just turn a blind eye to fraud and abuse if its white collar.

And its the liberals that claim to be fighting for the working class, yet spend their time destroying it by forcing jobs overseas with over regulation and the world's highest corporate tax rate. Even China is more business friendly than the US these days.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-more-friendly-to-business-than-uscoke-ceo-2011-09-26



I have sad news for you brain fart. Politicians dont care about you unless you are a millionaire and you are donating the max. They want your cash and your vote and will tell you ANYTHING to get either or both.

[bu villain]

another 2% who refused to take the test, which means they likely would have failed also.

Not a valid assumption.


If these people are getting caught they deserve double the punishment. An addict needs help to overcome the addiction. A casual user that knows he/she may be tested is just ignorant.

So addicts should get assistance but stupid people or people with poor self control shouldn't?


According to the article, the Justice Dept. estimates that 6% of Americans 12+ use drugs. Since 4.5% of welfare sponges in Florida use drugs, I would say the program is disproving that the parasites are too broke to buy drugs.

The term "welfare sponges" shows your bias clearly which makes it hard to accept your arguments are made from a logical standpoint rather than a purely ideological one. Also, since the percentage of welfare "sponges" using drugs is less than the normal population, wouldn't it be evidence that they can't afford as much drugs? Furthermore, isn't it also evidence that drugs are not a major factor in whether you need welfare assistance or not. Why do you think the percentage of drug users is smaller in welfare recipients?


I would assume those drugs are taken more by those that opposed this law based on the fact that supporters said to bring on the tests while those opposed danced around it.

Your assumption has no basis and isn't relevant to the merits of drug testing welfare recipients anyways.



Just wait until Obamacare takes effect and regulations like this are the norm. The only difference is that under Obamacare, it will be a govt bureaucrat that approves what your doc prescribes, not you or your doc.

Now getting even more off topic.


And its the liberals that claim to be fighting for the working class, yet spend their time destroying it by forcing jobs overseas with over regulation and the world's highest corporate tax rate. Even China is more business friendly than the US these days.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-more-friendly-to-business-than-uscoke-ceo-2011-09-26


And it keeps going...C'mon Jimmy! FOCUS! Just because Blender wants to lead you in some other direction doesn't mean you have to take the bait.