Florida first to stop financing drug addiction with tax dollars

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_starinvestor, Jun 7, 2011.

  1. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
  2. nudeyorker

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    42,918
    Likes Received:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NYC/Honolulu
    Well I was wondering when this was going to be posted. I will go ahead and say I support this and think that it should be mandated in all 50 states. I know that you and I are going to be the minority on this here but while I was working as an attorney for NY state it used to piss me off that I had to be drug tested and the people I was representing did not.
     
  3. D_Ben Twilly

    D_Ben Twilly New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good for them. It's common sense.
     
  4. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    It's an idea being done for so many wrong reasons. Primarily because the mass majority of those who support it already have the preconceived notion that those on welfare are "lazy people who sit around and do drugs".

    The law does nothing to look at any of these issues on an individual basis and unfairly lumps everyone on Welfare under one overgeneralizing piece of legislation. Which basically means if one of my friends found themselves down on their luck and needed to get on Welfare, but then came to my home where I proceeded to offer them a joint, they could be denied services if they was tested. So even if it looks good on paper, the motivation behind it is disingenuous.
     
  5. arkfarmbear

    arkfarmbear New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Arkansas
    What drugs are they screening for? Florida is supposedly in first place when it comes to the ease of obtaining oxycontin, vicodin, etc. Those drugs are highly addictive and are widely prescribed for chronic pain. I'll bet the guv is not messing with the "legal" drug market.
     
  6. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,280
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,118
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    The ACLU is suing to overturn this new law. IMO they will be successful. There's a thing called "unreasonable search and seizure". I saw the Flordia Governor interviewed and he was asked,"Do you have any evidence that people who collect welfare use illegal drugs at higher rates than the general population?"....His answer<"NO"

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576359780327686022.html
     
  7. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    What is more important to the economy? $2.2 trillion per year on entitlement spending, or being able to smoke a joint with Vinyl Boy and risk de-latching from the government tit?

    The greater good of the national economy supercedes weed parties at your house, VB.
     
  8. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    This.
     
  9. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I dont think that translates into unreasonable search and seizure. They don't want to take a drug test? Fine, you don't get welfare. It's as simple as that. I'm just playing devil's advocate, BTW, and don't get the point of this legislation, but I dont think it's unconstitutional
     
  10. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    There are some portions of the country, like much of Northern California )meaning outside the Bay Area and Sacramento), that economically depend on the cultivation and sale of marijuana.
     
  11. B_Marius567

    B_Marius567 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,952
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    tried this in missouri and made people homeless
     
  12. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Well first off, I don't actually take any illegal drugs and I'm a non smoker. So thank you for trying to take a hypothetical and twist it into a mind numbing, character & morality attack. However, if I need to be a bit vulgar here since you want to make this about my character for no reason instead of the subject matter, do keep in mind that my lungs are probably more pink than your last date's p****. That's how much of a non-smoker I am. But I digress...

    One of the main problems with "entitlement spending" is that people like you are hell bent on rewriting the definition of the word entitlement. You act as if people who are entitled to something are those who are sitting on their asses and are waiting to get a handout. When in reality, most people who actually have any form of employment purposely invest into these government programs so that they will have something to help them get by when they get older. In that sense, you're damn right they're entitled to it regardless of your pseudo-moralistic, socially ignorant judgements. I don't care how you try to spin the information, nor if you think you're better than some people just because you have some money in your pocket to take care of your selfish desires. Secondly, a good chunk of the deficit comes from our government "borrowing money" from those very entitlement programs that were designed to help our nation's citizens. They kept taking away from Medicare & Social Security funds to financially back other projects and that's been going on for DECADES. And now that there's a huge deficit, you bought into the notion that we actually have to cut the spending in these programs when in reality our government OWES the taxpayer that money back. But that doesn't stop you from denouncing the financially desolate, while supporting political crooks and/or backing faulty socially dividing policies that benefit the wealthiest who are also hungry for some of that monetary Similac that drips from the same government tit... or was it the genitals, I really don't know what you want to wrap your lips around these days?

    But I digress AGAIN, because what does anything you said have to do with the legislation that passed in Florida? Absolutely nothing. So stay the hell on topic.
     
    #12 B_VinylBoy, Jun 8, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2011
  13. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    I think you have to be very careful when you assume this is a good idea and an immediate fix. Two caveats:

    1. I'm dispensing with the usual need to scrutinize facts since the CNN article didn't provide any except for the number of calls related to bath salts poisonings.
    2. I'm also overlooking the obvious flaw in this legislation: there's no quantification that the problem exists. The CNN article doesn't quantify it and I'll bet the State of Florida didn't really study it except to say it exists or is likely to exist. Now, before all you Lone Rangers with a penchant for frontier justice get upset, I didn't say it doesn't exist... I think it's a valid assumption to make, but we don't typically set public policy in response to our assumptions. And we especially don't do it when such assumptions could be prejudicial to entire groups that make up the general population.
    So, with that out of the way, let's suppose that Florida does succeed in eliminating temporary family assistance funds for people who test positive for drugs. Several common sense dilemmas with that:

    • If you believe that drugs are addictive and I'm assuming we do since the OP called it "drug addiction", where will these drug addicts get money to finance their habits? I assume they aren't going to get a job at Wal-Mart nor are they just going to quit taking drugs. Will this result in increased crime?
    • How do you reconcile this effort in Florida with other legislation (not reported by CNN) to reduce the funding for drug rehabilitation programs in Florida such as the 2008 push to remove $40 million from the budget for drug addiction treatment?
    • What do you do about people who are hooked on substances that do not currently carry "illegal drug" status? Take, for example, the 'bath salts' that was in the very same article. Up until 1 July, those 'bath salts' are legal. They'll outlaw those, but soon, it will be a different 'better-living-through-chemistry' product. Legally obtained, legally sold, intoxicating, and most likely dangerous.
    • What do you do about people who are illegally using prescription drugs as arkfarmbear brought up?
    • What do you do with people who will screen positive for a drug test, but have a valid medical reason for doing so?
    • If someone tests positive, what is the State of Florida going to do with the children in that household? You see, 'knowing' that a parent and potential recipient of aid is unfit (under current Florida guidelines) to have custody of those children means Florida must now render aid. Since Florida guidelines require parents to be able to provide economically (clearly, they can't because they're asking for money) and to be physically healthy and to possess "moral" fitness (which they aren't because being a "known drug addict" invalidates that), will the State of Florida be compelled to remove any children from that household? If they don't, is the State subjecting themselves to a conundrum of circuitous logic?
    Let me address my next to last point about testing, because I think this aspect of this legislation may prove the most troublesome (apart from the obvious civil rights challenges that will materialize at some point). I'm also more than casually familiar with how this works.

    The problem with a drug test is it can only measure the presence or absence of certain chemicals. If someone tests positive for a 'prohibited substance', the only way to make sure that result is an unexpected presence of an illicit chemical is to employ medical review officers who review each drug screen and then validate potentially valid medical claims and prescription statuses with patients, and then ultimately, with their medical providers. To say that this is expensive and paper-intensive is an understatement. Let me give you a real-life situation: for a hospital population of just under 2,000 geographically co-located employees, one of my clients employs a full-time M.D., two full-time RNs, two medical associates and a medical secretary to screen the hospital population on a random basis and to screen ALL new job applicants (from the dishwasher to the Chief of Cardiology) for drugs. That's their primary function. The MRO job cannot be done by a layman or a faceless bureaucrat; MROs are licensed doctors with an active DEA registration and specific training in the medical and legal aspects of drug screening. I'm not even going to mention the cost of the drug testing itself (done by an outside lab), nor the need for facilities close to the testing population (to eliminate fraudulent collection of urine samples), nor the fact that my client, the hospital, has a corporate lawyer who theoretically reviews the notes regarding positive tests because peoples' Fourth Amendment guarantees are a tricky thing.

    So, I get the point of the legislation. It's tough talk and tough talk always sounds good when you think you have a big problem and an 'easy' solution. However, I wonder to what extent any of these common sense dilemmas were considered. I read -- with interest -- NudeYorker's support of the legislation, so I'm wondering how those of you who support it would propose dealing with these practical details?
     
    #13 ColoradoGuy, Jun 8, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2011
  14. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    Wow... I take a little bit of time to compose a thoughtful reply to your new Thread and while I'm doing that, you're practicing voodoo math to change the Thread into an indictment of so-called 'entitlement spending' and attempting gratuitous character assassination on VinylBoy?

    You really disappoint me, starinvestor. I thought you wanted to to discuss the topic you posted -- not take a cheap shot on another member.
     
  15. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    While this is all well and good, why are they punishing the children for the sins of the parents. I don't what the answer is but this one is as flawed as what is in place.
     
  16. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Great points, ColorodoGuy.
    I can understand why some people would be in favor of such laws. Nobody likes the idea of someone sitting at home doing nothing but collecting government assistance and spending the money frivolously on illegal drugs instead of taking care of their responsibilities or finding a way to become more self sufficient. But many of these laws are dreamt up without any regard to any specifics. That's why I find some grievances with this legislation. Maybe with more details my mind could be swayed?
     
  17. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    "You really disappoint me, startransvestor. I thought you wanted to to discuss the topic you posted -- not take a cheap shot on another member."....................Have not been her long have you?
     
  18. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    Come on, houtx48... if you're going to quote me, you could at least quote me intact. I didn't rename starinvestor because I don't think that promotes honest discussion or debate. Besides that, who are you trying to insult? starinvestor or transvestites?
     
  19. hud01

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    5,262
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    new york city
    You list NYC as your home, if you walk outside you are inhaling more crap in one day than someone in Montana does in a month.
     
  20. hud01

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    5,262
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    new york city
    Didn't want to repost this whole thing again, but great post.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted