23
   

Should you have to take a drug test to get TANF?

 
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2011 07:43 am
@aidan,
aidan wrote:
I'm for anything that might help some of these kids get what they need


there's nothing in this plan that looks to getting anything for 'these kids'. nothing.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2011 07:49 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that people who oppose this law don't care about kids.

I've never said that I'm in favor of this law -- only that I don't find the idea without some merit.

I think the difference is that most people see at as penalizing adults while a few of us see that it might have some benefit for kids.


From ehbeth's link:
Quote:
“While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction,” Scott said in a statement. “This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars.”


He may have mentioned the kids somewhere else in his statement but there's been no mention of them that I've seen. This isn't about the kids. It's about keeping tax dollars out of the hands of people who can't pass a drug test.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2011 07:53 am
@JPB,
Quote:
This isn't about the kids. It's about keeping tax dollars out of the hands of people who can't pass a drug test.


And if they happen to be his supporters and wealthy he could care less and I will think otherwise when the owner of the Marlins who we used taxpayers money to the tune of half a billions or so to help build a stadium will need to piss in a cup.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2011 08:12 am
@boomerang,
Quote:
I don't even want to get into cost effectiveness when it comes to making decisions about how best to benefit kids. If it benefited 5% of them then I would think that was a good use of money -- even if it wasn't "cost effective".


So pass a law that all parents and guardians of minors need to take a yearly random drug test as it might benefit some children.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2011 08:50 am
@aidan,
aidan wrote:


No, what I'm saying is if there is random testing, in other words it might happen, it might not - you don't know when it will happen and when it won't - this might have an effect on peoples' behavior.


( just snipping this for a point)

If this idea were true, and a truly effective means...then the amount of drug use over the entire population would go down.

every day -
-You MAY get hit while driving by someone else ( completely out of your control) so you would have to prove you were sober
-Your job MAY test you, so you would not use drugs at home
-Your school teacher MAY suspect drugs so you wouldnt use it
-You MAY be pulled over by police for speeding, running a red light and a whole barrage of other things so you wouldnt use anything in case you are tested.
-You could be walking on the side of the road, homeless, no job , no responsibilities and stopped by an officer where you MAY be put in a situation where you have to be tested for drugs...
Possibilities are endless and all are legitimate and something everyone in this society could be subject to.

in every day ways you will ALWAYS come to a possible 'what if ' point where that logic would apply even outside of the government assistance programs, yet.. on a whole, drug use in this country has stayed the same, or even gone up.

Thinking that someone who is in a system that uses drugs would NOT take drugs ' on the off chance of a test' is not going to stop the addict who is really there JUST to take advantage. And those are the ones that most people think this kind of law will target and get rid of. If drug addiction were that easy to cure, we wouldn't have addicts in the first place.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2011 08:52 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:


He may have mentioned the kids somewhere else in his statement but there's been no mention of them that I've seen. This isn't about the kids. It's about keeping tax dollars out of the hands of people who can't pass a drug test.


hehehe....

and here I go back to listing politicians who cant pass drug tests..
yet have every red hot cent of tax payers dollars in the palms of their hands. I bet even some of those who helped WRITE this proposal coudnt pass a drug test. Wink know what i mean..
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2011 01:03 pm
@aidan,
aidan wrote:

Why not? Abstaining from drug use, or any other harmful activity is abstaining from drug use or any other harmful activity - it doesn't matter why or what your motivation is - if you're abstaining, you're abstaining.
If you are abstaining with no real intention of stopping, I dont see the point in abstaining in the first place. You will probaly "compensate" it later.

aidan wrote:

No, what I'm saying is if there is random testing, in other words it might happen, it might not - you don't know when it will happen and when it won't - this might have an effect on peoples' behavior.
If I understood it right, the testing isnt really random though, you know the time it will happen, which is then you go get the money.

aidan wrote:

And look - I don't have any hatred for drug addicts. Some of my favorite people are addicts. I THANK GOD I wasn't born with an addictive personality. I see the struggle and sadness they endure EVERY SINGLE MINUTE OF EVERY SINGLE DAY! But those who are addicted will be the first to tell you they need outside help to fight their addiction.
That help should come from people and projects whose purpose is that though. Having help come from randow places doesnt sound like a good idea.

aidan wrote:

And it's not because they're poor. If you ask me to borrow money - it's my right to ask you what you need it for and what you might plan to spend it on, isn't it?
If it's your own money - heck - it's none of my business what you spend it on then - is it?

If you're getting a benefit - there's usually a cost attached, innit? That's life.
Its the government we are talking about here, so its not the same thing as borrowing money from a person. The government is supposed to be impartial and devoid of prejudice.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2011 04:36 pm
In general, i have a question.

WHY are we ( we meaning society ) only targeting drug users for this? And only imposing limits on THEM?

Why are child molesters allowed to get assistance? Especially the ones who re offend over and over?

Why are rapists allowed?

Why are robbers allowed?

Murderers?

These people have PROVEN they will do harm. Serious harm , yet no one wants to limit their ability to get assistance and no one wants to question the possibility of THEM being lazy and just taking advantage of a system.

They are proven. On record. Most repeat offenders.
Why go after those that are not on record for harm? or HAVE not done any harm ? or even WILL not.. ? why is it ok to target someone who does drugs, yet not ok to target those with criminal records such as those mentioned above?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 06:02 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
Many of the people I know have to take drug tests to keep their jobs and I don't think that's an extreme and illegal invasion of personal privacy so my gut reaction is that it's probably okay to require a drug test.

I think this analogy fails on at least two levels.
  1. There's no compelling reason in the first place for mandatory drug screening at work. My old country for example, Germany, doesn't have it. Yet when it comes to substance abuse at work, German businesses are doing no worse than American businesses.

  2. Although being high at work compromises your ability to do your job, being high at home does not compromise your ability to live there. So while there's at least some reason to screen prospective workers, screening prospective tenants is just arbitrary and mean.

Poor people may need the government's help, but they're still adults, innocent of any crime until proven guilty in court. Florida's new law, by contrast, summarily treats destitute people like criminal suspects---until they spend money they don't have to prove their innocence. This is chicanery, not social policy.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 06:10 pm
@Phoenix32890,
Phoenix32890 wrote:
I think that the government needs to be careful to whom they give the money, if the parents are irresponsible.

I don't see why you should think that. In general, disciples of Ayn Rand believe that the government shouldn't be in the business of giving anybody money. If you agree with your fellow disciples, what's there to be careful about? If not, what made you turn your back on Ayn Rand?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2011 12:11 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/25/judge-blocks-floridas-new-welfare-drug-testing-law/

This law has been temporarily blocked by a FL judge.

Quote:
Scriven ruled that the law may violate the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures: “This potential interception of positive drug tests by law enforcement implicates a ‘far more substantial’ invasion of privacy than in ordinary civil drug testing cases.”


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2011 05:57 pm
@boomerang,
Maybe thay r concerned that the recipients
will apply the taxpayer's funds to recreational drugs, instead of necessities.





David
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2011 06:04 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Given that this population had a lower proven drug use rate then the general public other then aiding the drug testing companies what the point?

But I would go along with it if all those lawmakers who are cashing in state checks would also needed to be tested.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 10:46 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Given that this population had a lower proven drug use rate then the general public
other then aiding the drug testing companies what the point?
1. I 'm not advocating anything. I take no position, pro nor con.

2. The reasoning might be to filter out people whose desperation
for addictive, recreational drugs woud result in the gifted $$
being diverted from food to satisfaction of those addictions.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 10:57 am
@Cycloptichorn,
osd, remember this from the beginning of the thread?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I can't believe that nobody is discussing the fact that this 'plan' is going to make Gov. Scott millions and millions of dollars, personally.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/gov-rick-scott-solantic-and-conflict-of-interest-whats-the-deal/1161158

0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  6  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 11:11 am
The anti poor bias in this nation is overwhelming. The rich are given money all the time, with no such restrictions and are in fact bankrupting the nation. But who is the whipping boy? Those least able to defend themselves.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 11:24 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
2. The reasoning might be to filter out people whose desperation
for addictive, recreational drugs woud result in the gifted $$
being diverted from food to satisfaction of those addictions


And the billionaire sport team owner that is given 500 millions in backing from the taxpayers for his team and is just as likely to be a drug user are we going to demand he give a urine sample before he can cash the first check?
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 03:10 am
@BillRM,
DAVID wrote:
2. The reasoning might be to filter out people whose desperation
for addictive, recreational drugs woud result in the gifted $$
being diverted from food to satisfaction of those addictions
BillRM wrote:
And the billionaire sport team owner that is given 500 millions in backing from the taxpayers for his team and is just as likely to be a drug user are we going to demand he give a urine sample before he can cash the first check?
I must have missed that, Bill.
Which sport team owner
was given $5OO,OOO,OOO of taxpayers' funds??

As a supporter of laissez faire free enterprize,
I oppose any grants or loans to sport teams.





David
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 03:21 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
As a supporter of laissez faire free enterprize,
I oppose any grants or loans to sport teams.


Look up the Miami Marlins for details.

Footnote the majority of the local citizens agree with you and it did not matter.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 03:27 am
@BillRM,
DAVID wrote:
As a supporter of laissez faire free enterprize,
I oppose any grants or loans to sport teams.
BillRM wrote:
Look up the Miami Marlins for details.
1) I 'm too lazy for that.
2) I don 't care enuf.





David
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 05:48:32