Drug testing for welfare recipients

-Bump-

Guess everyone's had their say, Scorp.

Politicians go first...then the drivers, then the welfare recipients, no problem. Lead by example.

Of course, we know the politicians' connections would skew the results, so it's a waste of time.

Quit paying for babies after the first mistake. No food stamp increase with additional children. Order them to get their tubes tied.

Turn the country in North Korea...there ya go.

Quote :

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results

Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs.

. . .

Actual savings will vary, however, since not all of the applicants denied benefits might have actually collected them for the full year. Under certain circumstances, applicants who failed their drug test can reapply for benefits after six months.

The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings, said Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The program will grow costlier yet, he said, if it draws a legal challenge.

. . .

"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

[quote="Heretic"]

Quote :

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results

Another wingnut myth like Reagan's 'Welfare queen" goes down in flames.

Good news!

Now there is "good news."

Judge blocks Fla.'s new welfare drug testing law

Quote :

A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida's new law that requires welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Judge Mary Scriven ruled in response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who sought the benefits while finishing his college degree, but refused to take the test. The judge said there was a good chance plaintiff Luis Lebron would succeed in his challenge to the law based on the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from being unfairly searched.

It's really good to see the courts stepping in on this issue. The "law" was clearly unconstitutional, and it is no longer in force.

Politicians, and then everyone else that gets government money, starting with Wall Street...

Yep. Then there'd at least be some attempt at fairness...

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Politicians, and then everyone else that gets government money, starting with Wall Street...

.... and ending with welfare recipients?

The Fourth Amendment applies equally to everyone, including politicians and anyone else who gets money from the government.

I think it's just plain wrong to advocate the elimination of anyone's Fourth Amendment rights.

Bullshitz they ain't indirectly testing you for drugs or alcohol....they send you for blood tests, which is where I found out why I was so sick since a few months ago. They never mentioned the pee (urine test) which I didn't care about, had no reason to.

This is in IL. The Medicaid program is OVER. Fortunately, my doctor still assists the Nurse Practitioner in making decisions about what drugs, what care I need. I didn't know I was her only medicaid patient until recently. (My doctor of over a decade, who called me after her residency was over, and took me under her wing. A missionary guardian angel under disquise.)

Point is...Obama care took over. Quinn and cronies can't pay medicaid, like Obama in a different sense, switched to "Aetna Family Care". I'm grateful for any medical attention when needed, as long as my former doctor is looking over my shoulder and guiding the new era not a doctor, nurse practitioner.

Soon to come to Indiana...drug testing, via urine tests they will not tell you is part of the new blood testing procedure.

Bad news for drug and alcoholic abusers...great for me as long as I have a former doctor that cared so much about me, I was her only medicaid patient.

In essence, all they did was shift the problem over to another breed of health care people. So they can say, "We need to pay off the medicaid doctors before we honor your half-azz care in this new forum of "managed care".

You stupid? I'm not. I don't receive welfare. I only receive SS/Medicaid which is now different. I'm sure most of you in Indiana are not surprised about the flaws IBM presented.

Think it was tough being disabled, trying college, volunteering for hospitals, domestic violence shelters, and mentally challenged people, elderly people who needed your help and landed a few jobs here and there to get off that crutch?

Well, if you're on that "CRUTCH" while doing drugs or excessive drinking...Indiana will take you off your crutch, and I am ALL FOR IT.

Don't try using someone elses' PEE hiden in your pants and go in the bathroom and fill your pee cup with a straight person's urine. I informed the Gov't that's the latest in PEE TESTING. Putting someone else's pee in the cup and sticking it in the revolving receptacle. I was shocked but not shocked someone would dream of that...so I informed the FEDS the latest I learned from "off the streets" talking assholes.

Oh, and that concoction to clean your system of marijuana, drugs, etc? The FEDS finally got smart and devised a test to see if you tried to fool them. You actually go to jail for trying to fudge a test on that before being hired.

Get involved.

Sometimes old-home remedies can be replaced with awareness.

Talking to YOU out there - I never had a problem lying or deceiving.

I would welcome drug/alcohol testing. Especially for dope addicts with teeth half chopped off and dry rotted with black and yellow spots for teeth. Asking for a dollar while filling your gas tank with $5.00 to get home.

chuckmo48 wrote:

My son, wife, and I had to sign a consent form for him to play on the high school sport team....wasn't real thrilled about it, but he didn't see a big deal about it and I wasn't going explain why I was against it...I think if it applies to students on sports teams; then random drug test ALL employees of the School Corp...

Why the hell do you want to expand the pool of people who are tested? I thought that you "were against it?" Trying to force others into surrendering their rights makes no sense at all to me. Your views seem contradictory to me. Care to clarify?

You know, it's not really a question of "what's fair." It's a Constitutional question.

Scorpion wrote:

chuckmo48 wrote:

My son, wife, and I had to sign a consent form for him to play on the high school sport team....wasn't real thrilled about it, but he didn't see a big deal about it and I wasn't going explain why I was against it...I think if it applies to students on sports teams; then random drug test ALL employees of the School Corp...

Why the hell do you want to expand the pool of people who are tested? I thought that you "were against it?" Trying to force others into surrendering their rights makes no sense at all to me. Your views seem contradictory to me. Care to clarify?

You know, it's not really a question of "what's fair." It's a Constitutional question.

I don't like it at all! , but it is not fair to just single out one population...If my son did not sign it he would not have been able to play high school sports...

s

chuckmo48 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

chuckmo48 wrote:

My son, wife, and I had to sign a consent form for him to play on the high school sport team....wasn't real thrilled about it, but he didn't see a big deal about it and I wasn't going explain why I was against it...I think if it applies to students on sports teams; then random drug test ALL employees of the School Corp...

Why the hell do you want to expand the pool of people who are tested? I thought that you "were against it?" Trying to force others into surrendering their rights makes no sense at all to me. Your views seem contradictory to me. Care to clarify?

You know, it's not really a question of "what's fair." It's a Constitutional question.

I don't like it at all! , but it is not fair to just single out one population...If my son did not sign it he would not have been able to play high school sports...

I was told by Chief Miller a cop can arrest you on any cause, as long as the cop is not questioning you. Which was one hell of a mistake.

chuckmo48 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

chuckmo48 wrote:

My son, wife, and I had to sign a consent form for him to play on the high school sport team....wasn't real thrilled about it, but he didn't see a big deal about it and I wasn't going explain why I was against it...I think if it applies to students on sports teams; then random drug test ALL employees of the School Corp...

Why the hell do you want to expand the pool of people who are tested? I thought that you "were against it?" Trying to force others into surrendering their makes no sense at all to me. Your views seem contradictory to me. Care to clarify?

You know, it's not really a question of "what's fair." It's a Constitutional question.

I don't like it at all! , but it is not fair to just single out one population...If my son did not sign it he would not have been able to play high school sports...

Yeah. Well I understand that you think it's "unfair." But as I pointed out earlier in this thread, I just don't think that it's helpful to advocate that the rights of others should be violated because you feel that your own rights (or your son's, in this case) have been violated.

In my mind, the correct response in this case is to fight for your rights if you feel that they have been violated. You're just compounding the problem by insisting that everyone else should be stripped of their rights as well. That kind of mindset would make it awfully easy for an authoritarian government to start taking away all of our rights, simply by pitting one group against another.

Are you starting to understand what I'm getting at?

Dear Scorpion: Yes, finally I understand your point.

But I still believe public officials who earn off taxpapers' money, who make decions for us should undergo tests for chronic alcoholism and drug abuse. All public officials, starting with the POTUS to the local level.

On the other side of the coin, any official locally who says you must undergo drug testing, such as school officials, can't say it unless they themselves go FIRST!

And you are even more correct saying: the correct response is to fight for YOUR RIGHTS when you have been betrayed or denied your rights for any given reason. There are a lot of agencies/resources/advocates out there who will guide you through the process.

Bitchin' just doesn't help. Raising awareness and changing the wrongness to a right, is the only way to go.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

That kind of mindset would make it awfully easy for an authoritarian government to start taking away all of our rights, simply by pitting one group against another.

Are you starting to understand what I'm getting at?

[b]Like pitting the 99% against the 1%.

You don't get it,do you? The 99& are citizens simply voicing their opinions.

happy jack wrote:

Like pitting the 99% against the 1%.
Or pitting 'normal' Americans against those who cling to guns and religion.

Or pitting 'normal' Americans against union workers and teachers.

Hey, Happy Jack, correct me if I am wrong. From the old board I took it you owned a glass replacement company..is that so? I need a cracked window fixed/ Some a-hole thought he could break in one day. I have two choices: no, three: clean the orange crap and use liquid nails/ replace the whole damn picture window with side windows, or call a window company that can repair the crack itse;f/

If you fall in the category of owning a legit window replacement/repair thing, give me a PM HOLLAR.

All aside, if you still own a business, but I got the wrong guy for the wrong job, do you ask your employees to take a drug/alcohol test before you hire them?

Or, is it like....you know, not what you knowingly know?