New Florida Law: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

[galdre]

drug tests in no way prevent people from doing drugs on the job - I've worked at places that required a drug test and some of my coworkers were on drugs while at work. Even in the military, that tests randomly (or did while I was in), didn't prevent people from doing drugs, they just found drugs that wouldn't show up on the test

drug tests are a pointless invasion of privacy.

 

[civver_764]

so house them at your place and buy thier drugs for them while your at it...the rest of us dont want to....

I don't care what the rest of you want. It's not for you to decide.

 

[Aegis]

I don't care what the rest of you want. It's not for you to decide.

That's the thing about Republics: We do get to decide.

 

[civver_764]

How other people live? Not in any republic I want to live in.

 

[Aegis]

How other people live?

No, whether or not someone is deserving of government assistance. If you want to interpret that as determining how other people live their lives, that's okay.

 

[downtown]

You can do whatever you want, you don't ask me to pay for it. When you ask for everybody else's money, you get to listen to their opinions on what is done with it.

 

[dirtyparrot]

Nope, not at all. In fact, I have mentioned several times that I undergo several random urinalysis tests a year as a condition of my employment. If its good enough for me to keep my job, then its good enough for a welfare recipient to keep them on the dole.

I didn't mean drug tests per say but in more general terms. How would you feel for example if in order to get tax breaks for raising children that the government had social workers interview your children.

Not having to give the government more of your money because of a tax break is not the same thing as having money given to you by the government.

I hardly see how that's relevant. The government is giving you money (whether directly or indirectly) for a specific purpose/reason.

 

[Aegis]

I hardly see how that's relevant. The government is giving you money (whether directly or indirectly) for a specific purpose/reason.

You really don't see a difference between being given money that you didn't earn, and the government not taking as much money that you did earn?

 

[civver_764]

You can do whatever you want, you don't ask me to pay for it. When you ask for everybody else's money, you get to listen to their opinions on what is done with it.

I don't buy that it's your money in the first place.

And it's in society's best interest to not kick these people off welfare anyways, even if you think they don't have a right to the money.

 

[Archbob]

I don't buy that it's your money in the first place.

Fine then, if they don't have to work for it. Then lets just all stop working and give everyone money and drugs for free.

 

[Aegis]

I don't buy that it's your money in the first place.

Sure, some of it is. Why wouldn't it be? Where do you think the funding comes from, if not from the taxpayers?

And it's in society's best interest to not kick these people off welfare anyways, even if you think they don't have a right to the money.

If they are not contributing anything to society, why is it in our best interest to keep them on the dole? Any money spent keeping them afloat is better spent in education, or creating a job where they can work to receive the exact same money.

 

[El_Machinae]

You really don't see a difference between being given money that you didn't earn, and the government not taking as much money that you did earn?

In the colloquial sense, I agree with you. However, there's a marked difference between refundable tax credits and non-refundable tax credits, in the context of whether they're similar to welfare or not.

Some tax credits are much more similar to welfare than others.

 

[Aegis]

In the colloquial sense, I agree with you. However, there's a marked difference between refundable tax credits and non-refundable tax credits, in the context of whether they're similar to welfare or not.

Some tax credits are much more similar to welfare than others.

I'm not really following you. Could you elaborate, please?

[Edit:] Unless you were referring to tax credits for purchasing energy-efficient appliances, etc.

 

[civver_764]

Sure, some of it is. Why wouldn't it be? Where do you think the funding comes from, if not from the taxpayers?

I'm not saying it doesn't come from you guys, I'm saying that you don't deserve it any more than they do. Society sucks, and some people are compensated more than they should be, while others are compensated less. This is a temporary way to slightly balance that out.

If they are not contributing anything to society, why is it in our best interest to keep them on the dole? Any money spent keeping them afloat is better spent in education, or creating a job where they can work to receive the exact same money.

Because they're going to start taking away from society by breaking into your car or your house to feed their addiction. And when jobs won't hire drug addicts and the rehabilitation programs the government offers are terrible, what other choice do they have?

 

[MobBoss]

Yes. Should they be forced to? No.

Except they are not being forced to. They can absolutely choose drugs over welfare, if thats the choice they desire to make.

These are two separate concepts though.

1. Agreeing to something
2. Invasion of privacy

They are not mutually exclusive concepts and I don't know why you think that they are. You are able to agree to an invasion of privacy. Just because you agree to something doesn't automatically not make it an invasion of privacy.

Warpus, if you consent to it, how is it then still an invasion of your privacy?

For example, I could say to you: "Mobboss, I allow you to invade my privacy. Install a webcam in my bathroom". I agreed to it - but it's an invasion of my privacy nevertheless.

I see what you are trying to say, but I dont think you are saying it correctly. That would be like trying to claim 'rape' after you consented to mutual sex. Thats not how it works.

Yeah but the drug tests in American places of employment don't test if you are high right now. They test if you have been high in the last couple weeks.

Actually, this is not entirely accurate. Those drug tests will indeed pick it up if you were high while taking the test and in fact, for the military at least, the levels are set so that you would have had to feel an affect from the drug for it to test positive in your system.

Obviously we shouldn't allow people to be high or drunk at work, no matter what the job is.

You can always have probable cause to test someone at work if you think they may be high or drunk.

drug tests in no way prevent people from doing drugs on the job - I've worked at places that required a drug test and some of my coworkers were on drugs while at work. Even in the military, that tests randomly (or did while I was in), didn't prevent people from doing drugs, they just found drugs that wouldn't show up on the test

drug tests are a pointless invasion of privacy.

Since you bring up the military, exactly which drugs do you think that wont show up on the militarys test? I happen to have a list right in front of me, and its pretty comprehensive of what we do test for. So?

I don't care what the rest of you want. It's not for you to decide.

Actually, it is up for our elected representatives to decide, especially since its our money we are talking about.

I don't buy that it's your money in the first place.

Its paid for by taxpayer money. I'm a taxpayer. Seems pretty clear to me that it is indeed our money.

And it's in society's best interest to not kick these people off welfare anyways, even if you think they don't have a right to the money.

Giving the unproductive even more incentive to be unproductive is in the best interest of society?

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not saying it doesn't come from you guys, I'm saying that you don't deserve it any more than they do.

The mere fact that we WORKED for our money says your're wrong on that one.

Because they're going to start taking away from society by breaking into your car or your house to feed their addiction.

Here's a novel idea: why dont they get a job instead?

Bottom line, all your talking about is extortion. If we dont pay druggies off they will take our stuffs. Sorry, not going to play that. I'd gladly use more of my tax dollars for more cops and more prisons if thats the case.

And when jobs won't hire drug addicts and the rehabilitation programs the government offers are terrible, what other choice do they have?

Give up drugs and get their lives in order.

 

[Aegis]

I'm not saying it doesn't come from you guys, I'm saying that you don't deserve it any more than they do.

The people who earned the money don't deserve it more than the people who didn't earn it?

Because they're going to start taking away from society by breaking into your car or your house to feed their addiction. And when jobs won't hire drug addicts and the rehabilitation programs the government offers are terrible, what other choice do they have?

They're taking away from society either way. At least with your scenario they're forced to make the decision to clean up and get a job or become a homeless burglar. [Edit:] I agree with Mobby. I'd much rather pay more for an increase to police/security, than to continually fork it over to someone who gets paid to sit on their ass at home.

I don't really buy into the idea that everyone on welfare is a lazy bum who doesn't want to work. I would hazard to say that most people on welfare do want to work, but because either their jobs offer too little pay or the cost of living is too high (or a combination of both), they wind up still stuck on welfare. The fundamental problem is not going to be solved by giving people money for the sake of doing so. Its going to be solved by increasing education and providing more opportunities for people to work good jobs.

Why do you say that rehab programs have terrible performance?

 

[El_Machinae]

Not having to give the government more of your money because of a tax break is not the same thing as having money given to you by the government.

I'm not really following you. Could you elaborate, please?

[Edit:] Unless you were referring to tax credits for purchasing energy-efficient appliances, etc.

It's more about corporate welfare than anything else. We can easily see that a 'tax break' is dissimilar from 'welfare', but with refundable tax credits (which are either welfare or a tax break, depending on how much you make) we have to be careful

 

[civver_764]

The people who earned the money don't deserve it more than the people who didn't earn it?

There's a difference between earning money and obtaining it.

I don't really buy into the idea that everyone on welfare is a lazy bum who doesn't want to work. I would hazard to say that most people on welfare do want to work, but because either their jobs offer too little pay or the cost of living is too high (or a combination of both), they wind up still stuck on welfare. The fundamental problem is not going to be solved by giving people money for the sake of doing so. Its going to be solved by increasing education and providing more opportunities for people to work good jobs.

I agree, we need to work towards making a more equitable society. But kicking people off of welfare is the exact opposite of doing that. I'm not saying leave them on welfare and do nothing else, but this is just a step in the wrong direction entirely.

Why do you say that rehab programs have terrible performance?

Because they statistically do.

 

[Aegis]

It's more about corporate welfare than anything else. We can easily see that a 'tax break' is dissimilar from 'welfare', but with refundable tax credits (which are either welfare or a tax break, depending on how much you make) we have to be careful

I understand now. I would argue that those receiving a refundable tax credit are receiving it for something that they done to help society. Like GE not paying any corporate tax in 2010. They managed to do that with tax credits, but those tax credits were for developing Green technologies, which helps society. It's the same for someone donating to charity, or who installs energy efficient windows. It is an incentive to contribute towards the betterment of society.