3PedalMINI Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/05/florida.welfare.drug.testing/ this is crazy! how could anyone oppose this law? i cant believe that it has taken this long to impose this law. its ok and legal to drug test employees out working their asses off but not ok to drug test the people the workers are paying for with their taxes? WTF. this is reverse discrimination!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6spdg37s Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 yeah i mean while working at 1 company over a 2 year period of time i had to take 4 drug tests , which is cool because im not a drug addict or user so w.e idc its just time consuming... but then know that I am unemployed I collect "taxpayer" money (not as direct as being on welfare) and i dont get drug tested. i agree with u bro ! they should be drug tested, especially welfare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIDetailing Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I'm sorry but everything that Rick Scott has done for Florida has been nothing but horrible things that makes Florida look bad. He wants to put his name on all the signs that says welcome to Florida, he turned down the high speed rail but yet he wants to help increase jobs. How can people vote for a Guy like this? I voted to impeach him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAYBEN Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 theres a lot that should be done to qualify for welfare.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbreyer Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I agree totally! I know too many people that are using welfare and they use a good percent of cash for drugs. If i have to pass drug test for my ODOT and employer why cant they at least contribute a clean urine sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedexInLA Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I'll tell you what get's to me on welfare. When one goes on welfare they can stay on it in most cases up to one year but most never come off of it. Young moms have welfare to help them get back on their feet, like maybe going to school to learn a trade, but not in getting a masters degree, not what welfare is all about. Sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGenCoupe Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Not everyone on welfare is a drug addict, but i'd say a good percentage are. We can't judge a book by its cover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redvenm Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Of course they are not all addicts, some most certainly are. I do not want my tax money given to addicts. TEST THEM!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE Mook Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I can't say that it's not at least a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Cee Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I would agree those that are receiving welfare should be tested, but what will be the effect of this testing. If the test comes back positve do they no longer receive payment? What about the innocent child or children who's parent is a addict do they deserve to become hungry and homeless due to their parents addiction? Thats a tough one no easy answers. Taxpayers will most likely also be paying for their drug treatment. Be careful what you wish for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAYBEN Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 in that case, I think the state should take the children.. Yes, it will be hard for the kids, but in the long run they will be much better.. if a parent doesn't care enough to take care of themselves and not expose their children to that stuff, the kid is better off.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylander Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I would agree those that are receiving welfare should be tested, but what will be the effect of this testing. If the test comes back positve do they no longer receive payment? What about the innocent child or children who's parent is a addict do they deserve to become hungry and homeless due to their parents addiction? Thats a tough one no easy answers. Taxpayers will most likely also be paying for their drug treatment. Be careful what you wish for. The article says someone else can apply for benefits to care for the children. And yea, you're right -- this opens a whole can of worms. Say you get a positive on a drug test... can employers demand that info, and then deny you a job based on it? That perpetrates someone being unemployed even longer. And if the Government can do that, how long before they demand a drug test before issuing you a driver's license? A home mortgage? A passport? Medicare? Are taxpayers going to pay for drug treatment and prison costs for everyone that gets snagged in this net? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Cee Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Ok..let me play devil's advocate a minute. Would you proposed that someones child should be taken by the state for testing positive for alcohol or marijuana? It just seems we could create quite slippery slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAYBEN Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 alcohol is different, yes there are plenty of people that abuse it, but that is another animal.. narcotics should be punishable.. if they test positive, the child should be removed from the atmosphere.. once the parent can prove they have been clean and stable, then they can be further investigated and have a chance to regain custody.. if they do regain custody, there should be follow ups.. these are my opinions, you may or may not agree with them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usf3983 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I wouldn't say that I would restrict the education level a single parent wishes to pursue. People fail to realize that a lot of the time, the other parent can not be accounted for, period. That's rough. I wouldn't ever want to be stuck in the position. And I also wouldn't be for a 1 strike policy. More like a 2 or 3 strike policy before the children are taken away. It might depend on the drug too. I'd say that the effect that alcohol and weed have on a parent are equivalent except when the weed is smoked around a child. When ANYTHING is SMOKED around a child, that is probably the absolute worst offense of them all. If these children are allowed to grow up without the same chance as a typical household, they will eventually become a burden to society and that wouldn't be good for anyone. One thing that I would be for is limits on foodstamps. As far as I know, foodstamps can be used for quite a variety of things. It should be more like W.I.C. where you are restricted to certain things, but not as strict as W.I.C. In reality, there are ton of other useless programs that could be cut before things like welfare should be cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.