Florida first to stop financing drug addiction with tax dollars

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure - CNN

Landmark legislation which will:

  • stop enabling drug addiction for welfare recipients
  • provide incentive for the unmotivated to stop using drugs
  • address the substantial and out of control problem of entitlement spending

You forgot a bullet point:

  • cost tax payers an additional $5,424,000
You see, though the bill will require welfare recipients to pay for their test out of pocket, it then calls for them to be reimbursed when they pass. The average drug test costs $48. There are 113,000 welfare recipients in Florida. Multiply those figures and you get $5,424,000. That's a lot of money. Of course, this doesn't include the salaries of the new public employees (EG Bloated Government Bureaucrats) who will be verifying these drug tests, nor the court costs associated with the inevitable appeals of those who do test positive (which will likely amount to about 8% of the population tested).

I just don't buy the whole "this saves the average tax payer money" BS. It doesn't. It costs them money by adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to an already inflated system. I really thought a staunch conservative stalwart such as yourself would understand this. The solution should be less government, right?
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,758
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
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
If you need to trade your urine for your welfare check, without any evidence that you are a drug user......that's unreasonable search and seizure. Your medical records are protected by HIPPA. Your urine contains a wealth of information regarding your current state of health which is of no business to the government.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Perhaps the drug testing should only apply to welfare recipients who have a criminal history that is drug related? At least that way, it doesn't impede on the lives of those who are doing the right things.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If you need to trade your urine for your welfare check, without any evidence that you are a drug user......that's unreasonable search and seizure. Your medical records are protected by HIPPA. Your urine contains a wealth of information regarding your current state of health which is of no business to the government.

It isn't unreasonable when the government is giving them handouts. When they can support themselves, they can play the search and seizure card.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You forgot a bullet point:

  • cost tax payers an additional $5,424,000
You see, though the bill will require welfare recipients to pay for their test out of pocket, it then calls for them to be reimbursed when they pass. The average drug test costs $48. There are 113,000 welfare recipients in Florida. Multiply those figures and you get $5,424,000. That's a lot of money. Of course, this doesn't include the salaries of the new public employees (EG Bloated Government Bureaucrats) who will be verifying these drug tests, nor the court costs associated with the inevitable appeals of those who do test positive (which will likely amount to about 8% of the population tested).

plug this into your equation:

10+ years of foregone entitlement payments to one typical drugger * millions of druggers on entitlement payments.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
plug this into your equation:

10+ years of foregone entitlement payments to one typical drugger * millions of druggers on entitlement payments.


Millions, eh? Where did you get that statistic?

The statistics I provided (those numbers are links), say there are only 113,000 welfare recipients in Florida. They also point to the fact that welfare recipients have the exact same drug user ratio as the general population (about 8/100). Where are these millions of druggers????
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
No, we are suggesting that those who come in every month begging for a handout simply need to prove that they aren't buying drugs with the handout money.

...even if it means revoking rights granted to them by the Constitution. Because ultimately, whether or not we take care of our nation's poor and less fortunate means nothing. It's all about your tax money. Gotcha. :rolleyes:
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
...even if it means revoking rights granted to them by the Constitution. Because ultimately, whether or not we take care of our nation's poor and less fortunate means nothing. It's all about your tax money. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

nobody is being 'searched and seized' that isn't showing up and taking other people's money. If the government is going to rob Peter to pay Paul, it [gov't] damn well better know what Paul is doing with the money.

It would make things much easier if the druggers just bought the illegal drugs with their own money, instead of the money of hard-working people that don't want to buy illegal drugs. Wouldn't that be easier, VB?

So people like you and IS wouldn't have to dig into the constitution to create some kind of miraculous interpretation of that document to justify drug use for welfare recipients?

Wouldn't it be a lot easier if they just got a job? Or didn't sit around playing video games and smoking pot, while the guy that's out there laying concrete in 105 degree heat is paying for the drugs as the drugger lays on his couch playing Xbox with his buddies?
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
nobody is being 'searched and seized' that isn't showing up and taking other people's money. If the government is going to rob Peter to pay Paul, it [gov't] damn well better know what Paul is doing with the money.

Obviously you ignored what Indy stated earlier so I will copy/paste two important lines from it - Your medical records are protected by HIPPA. Your urine contains a wealth of information regarding your current state of health which is of no business to the government. That statement plus the 4th Amendment ends this argument.

Your bigoted views on the poor and those needing government assistance, compounded with your infatuation with corporate greed, make you suspect that welfare recipients are lazy and do drugs (as well as many people who back similar legislation). I hate to break your heart, but your prejudices are not probable cause to make anyone piss in a cup.

It would make things much easier if the druggers just bought the illegal drugs with their own money, instead of the money of hard-working people that don't want to buy illegal drugs. Wouldn't that be easier, VB?

Why don't you go ask your pusher that question as I don't do illegal drugs. :rolleyes:

So people like you and IS wouldn't have to dig into the constitution to create some kind of miraculous interpretation of that document to justify drug use for welfare recipients?

The 4th Amendment - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's the text. Read it. Even welfare recipients are granted this right. On top of all this, you're also being a hypocrite for trying to call me out for using the Constitution to back my argument.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier if they just got a job? Or didn't sit around playing video games and smoking pot, while the guy that's out there laying concrete in 105 degree heat is paying for the drugs as the drugger lays on his couch playing Xbox with his buddies?

We really don't need to know what you do in your spare time, starinvestor. This is about the Florida law and how it oversteps its boundaries. I know you have nothing but hate for people who are financially beneath you, but do try to stay on topic next time. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Obviously you ignored what Indy stated earlier so I will copy/paste two important lines from it - Your medical records are protected by HIPPA. Your urine contains a wealth of information regarding your current state of health which is of no business to the government. That statement plus the 4th Amendment ends this argument.
Nobody is confiscating medical records.

Nobody is asking for urine samples unless people are standing in line asking for other people's money.

For example, what I do is none of the government's business - because I pay them in the form of taxes - so that I can have police, highways, a military, laws, etc.

Not so they can give it to people to smoke pot and play Madden XXII.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Ya know, where are the "millions of druggers"? A nice statistical source would be great.

Also, I would like a detailed explanation of how this jives with your general "smaller government is always the best answer" attitude. Bloated Government Bureaucrats, dude. That's what this law is making. I want a convincing argument why, in this case, bigger government is a good thing, but in all other cases it's a bad thing.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
172
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
If you need to trade your urine for your welfare check, without any evidence that you are a drug user......that's unreasonable search and seizure. Your medical records are protected by HIPPA. Your urine contains a wealth of information regarding your current state of health which is of no business to the government.

I strongly disagree with you, but we will just have to agree to disagree
 

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Nobody is confiscating medical records.

Nobody is asking for urine samples unless people are standing in line asking for other people's money.

For example, what I do is none of the government's business - because I pay them in the form of taxes - so that I can have police, highways, a military, laws, etc.

Not so they can give it to people to smoke pot and play Madden XXII.

However, starinvestor... even you can appreciate that your 4th Amendment rights are degraded if anybody's 4th Amendment rights are degraded. This is similar to the rationale for the NRA's position on gun control: any attempt to restrain or restrict the private ownership of guns threatens the 2nd Amendment. "Out of my cold dead hands" and all of that.

Luckily, the fact you pay taxes is not what guarantees your civil rights -- you get them because you are an American. We may have a privileged class in the United States, but the rights extended to all citizens (and the laws that protect those rights) have Constitutionally-enshrined blinders on when it comes to income and socioeconomic status.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
However, starinvestor... even you can appreciate that your 4th Amendment rights are degraded if anybody's 4th Amendment rights are degraded. This is similar to the rationale for the NRA's position on gun control: any attempt to restrain or restrict the private ownership of guns threatens the 2nd Amendment. "Out of my cold dead hands" and all of that.

Luckily, the fact you pay taxes is not what guarantees your civil rights -- you get them because you are an American. We may have a privileged class in the United States, but the rights extended to all citizens (and the laws that protect those rights) have Constitutionally-enshrined blinders on when it comes to income and socioeconomic status.

I understand your point; however I also believe that when entitlement programs were established, they were not created to enable drug use and dependency; and some drastic changes need to be made to save our economy. Entitlement spending is 60% of the national budget. We've got to start cutting somewhere, and this is a good start.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Ya know, where are the "millions of druggers"? A nice statistical source would be great.

Also, I would like a detailed explanation of how this jives with your general "smaller government is always the best answer" attitude. Bloated Government Bureaucrats, dude. That's what this law is making. I want a convincing argument why, in this case, bigger government is a good thing, but in all other cases it's a bad thing.

Here ya go...

Substance Use Among Persons in Families Receiving Government Assistance

those recieving cash assistance use drugs at a 40% higher rate than those not receiving any assistance.

At the time of the above study, 27 million people were recieving gov't assistance, and 10% of those were drug users.

That is - 2.7 million drug users on gov't assistance.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Ya know, where are the "millions of druggers"? A nice statistical source would be great.

Also, I would like a detailed explanation of how this jives with your general "smaller government is always the best answer" attitude. Bloated Government Bureaucrats, dude. That's what this law is making. I want a convincing argument why, in this case, bigger government is a good thing, but in all other cases it's a bad thing.


Also, there isn't that much bloat for this program. The guy pisses in a cup and you send it off to the lab. Big deal.