Page 1 of 16 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 155

Thread: Judge says naughty-naughty to Florda keeping wealfare money from drug useres.

  1. #1

    Default Judge says naughty-naughty to Florda keeping wealfare money from drug useres.

    Federal Judge Blocks Florida Law Requiring Drug Tests for Welfare | Drugs | AlterNet


    Florada is tring to prvent wealfare fraud, and a Fedral jugde says it is not aloud, wounder if the judge had some drug money slipped into his pocket.

  2. #2

    Default

    Has anyone actually found evidence that UI recipients are more likely than the typical American to be drug users? If not, what makes this different from a witch hunt?

  3. #3

    Default

    I'm generally pretty anti-welfare state but besides the obvious issues highlighted, oppose drug testing on the grounds that it isn't even particularly effective Just consider the amount of resources spent vs. the actual amount of people caught (about 2%). It just doesn't make much sense from a cost/benefit perspective.



    Quote Originally Posted by NightFox View Post
    Has anyone actually found evidence that UI recipients are more likely than the typical American to be drug users? If not, what makes this different from a witch hunt?
    The typical american already has an extremely high rate of use relative to other countries. Which again, shows how much of a joke this testing really is.. Either that or I'm totally wrong and welfare recipients are just less inclined to use drugs than the general population (somehow I doubt that).

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by october View Post
    Which again, shows how much of a joke this testing really is.. Either that or I'm totally wrong and welfare recipients are just less inclined to use drugs than the general population (somehow I doubt that).
    Mayhaps they're spending it on food instead?

    I spent some time on UI in New Jersey. You can't get benefits unless you had a steady job, you were laid off not for your fault, and when you get benefits they pay about 60% or less of what you were making. So people in NJ receiving UI I assume are generally responsible enough to know things like to pay for food and rent before pot, and to realize UI isn't enough money for food, rent, and pot.

  5. #5

    Default

    I don't subscribe to the idea that narcotics of any kind should be illegal (though i would never support or advocate their non-medical use)... But then again... i don't really support the enormous monstrosity that welfare has become, either.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Foley View Post
    I don't subscribe to the idea that narcotics of any kind should be illegal... But then again... i don't really support the enormous monstrosity that welfare has become, either.
    My thoughts exactly.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by NightFox View Post
    Has anyone actually found evidence that UI recipients are more likely than the typical American to be drug users? If not, what makes this different from a witch hunt?


    Quote Originally Posted by october View Post
    I'm generally pretty anti-welfare state but besides the obvious issues highlighted, oppose drug testing on the grounds that it isn't even particularly effective Just consider the amount of resources spent vs. the actual amount of people caught (about 2%). It just doesn't make much sense from a cost/benefit perspective.



    The typical american already has an extremely high rate of use relative to other countries. Which again, shows how much of a joke this testing really is.. Either that or I'm totally wrong and welfare recipients are just less inclined to use drugs than the general population (somehow I doubt that).
    It is totally the case that this random drug screening has shown welfare recipients are in fact less likely to be using illegal drugs than the general population. This really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone; illegal drug use is a habit that's really hard to afford on welfare.

    This law got passed because, "OMG free-loaders on welfare are all stereotypical useless people! Conservative rage!" It's unsurprisingly a bigoted, stupid law that throws money at a conservative talking point rather than an actual problem.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by october View Post
    The typical american already has an extremely high rate of use relative to other countries. Which again, shows how much of a joke this testing really is.. Either that or I'm totally wrong and welfare recipients are just less inclined to use drugs than the general population (somehow I doubt that).
    This is a very good point. Just imagine if we tied this rule getting government aid, we'd catch not just the low hanging fruit, but the big spenders at the top. We'd catch all the 'new money' folk getting bank bonuses all the way down to the meth houses in the ghetto. This is brilliant!

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by october View Post
    I'm generally pretty anti-welfare state but besides the obvious issues highlighted, oppose drug testing on the grounds that it isn't even particularly effective Just consider the amount of resources spent vs. the actual amount of people caught (about 2%). It just doesn't make much sense from a cost/benefit perspective.
    Thirty-two applicants failed the test, 7,028 passed and 1,597 didn't take it, according figures released Tuesday the Department of Children and Families. People who decline to take the test aren't required to explain.

    1,597 welfare applicants decline drug test in Fla. - Yahoo! News

    I dispute your assertion regarding the program's efficacy. 18.5% fewer people collecting welfare benefits is quite effective, in my view. If someone told me implementing this nationwide would result in just short of 20% fewer welfare checks being handed out, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.

    ---------- Post added at 08:55 ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 ----------

    Being the staunch libertarian that I am, I'm opposed to government welfare and opposed to drug prohibition.

    However, I'm also of the mind that, since government welfare exists, you as a citizen are ceding your responsibility for taking care of yourself and your family to the government when you accept government handouts. In other words, you want Uncle Sam to be your daddy. Well, if your real daddy were still taking care of you, it'd be "his house, his rules". I see this as a perfectly acceptable substitute.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by october View Post
    I'm generally pretty anti-welfare state but besides the obvious issues highlighted, oppose drug testing on the grounds that it isn't even particularly effective Just consider the amount of resources spent vs. the actual amount of people caught (about 2%). It just doesn't make much sense from a cost/benefit perspective.


    Quote Originally Posted by WBDaddy View Post
    I dispute your assertion regarding the program's efficacy. 18.5% fewer people collecting welfare benefits is quite effective, in my view. If someone told me implementing this nationwide would result in just short of 20% fewer welfare checks being handed out, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.
    Indeed. Most tests aimed at detecting illegal behaviour don't actually catch very many people. The question is, how many would try their luck if you weren't testing. The primary purpose of laws like this is deterrence. And unfortunately, it's not always easy to do a cost-benefit analysis of deterrence - how do you count crimes that don't happen?

    But in response to the OP - even if mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients could be proven to be highly efficacious, that wouldn't make it legal. The US has a Constitution, and that Constitution severly restricts the government's freedom of action in many areas. That is what it was written to do. The higher level courts don't consider matters of justice, or net social benefit, merely matters of law. If a law is not consistent with the Constitution, then it is not binding, no matter how much it may benefit society.

Similar Threads

  1. Toddler Babies: Naughty and Nice Treats afterwards
    By maddie212 in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13-Dec-2010, 10:01
  2. Naughty Bear - anybody else looking forward to it?
    By KaworuVsDrWily in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 29-Mar-2010, 02:31

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.