Federal judge rules Florida’s welfare drug testing law unconstitutional (employment, wage)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you know that the Lexus belonged to HER? Perhaps she's someone's maid. Do you know how old the Lexus was? (My car was hit the other day by a Volvo SUV I took to be brand new and, in fact, it turned out to be seven years old.) Do you know for sure she wasn't living in her car? A shocking number of people do. Do you know that very few people get to collect food stamps for lengthy periods of time? If she was loading curbside, is it possible is disabled? Do you know that welfare as we knew it pre-Bill Clinton doesn't exist any more?
Obviously, you DO "give a flip" or you wouldn't be wasting your time complaining about circumstantial evidence that may, or may not, prove anything.
I received benefits for about 6 months many years ago, I remember the first time I used the card and being so thankful that I was able to actually have food in the cabinets for my two girls. I also remember the odd look I got from the cashier when I handed her my coupons.
I really never understood why you can buy shrimp, steaks, most any food item high dollar or not, yet you can't buy toilet paper or tampons, that was years ago.
Most recently, my drunk niece, who is a mother of two little ones was approved for benefits and it seems as she now has more money to get drunk most everyday. A former friend of mine, also on benefits because she claims to have fibromyalgia, brags about the money she makes selling her extra pain pills and how the convenience store down the street will take her card for a carton of cigarettes. And yes, she drives a nice car and dresses way better then I ever have or ever will. She looks just great going to the store all dressed up buying food on her free card.
It was great to have these benefits available when I was down, but the abuse goes unchecked for the most part. IMO , the benefits should be a help up, not a hand out and if you can't pass a drug test, no benefits, period, consider it the price one pays for not paying their own way, as we ALL should.
Take care - Be safe
Whatever.. I have to pass a drug test to get a job.
I quit giving a flip about the 4th time I saw the woman pay for her groceries with food stamps and then take her cart outside to load her waiting Lexus parked curbside...
The freeloaders win... what else is new?
You don't have to pass that drug test, just apply for a different job.
They don't have to pass a drug test, they could not apply for public aid.
I don't see how it's unconstitutional. Welfare isn't something that is mandatory that they take.
Have you just ignored all the posts before yours? Use of welfare services is voluntary. The government wouldn't be seizing anything, because part of the contract in using welfare is that (or should be, if it isn't obvious) drug use is not allowed. Taxpayer money shoould not be given to people who supposedly need it to live but use it for drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc. It's no different than working for a company that drug tests. You want to work there, you play by their rules. You want free money from the government, play by their rules. No one is forced to take welfare.
I have no idea why you lump police and fire into the same category.
As for the percentages, if a person can pay for their drugs, it doesn't really matter what they do with their money, does it?
I find it interesting that you think things like needing to eat or keeping a roof over your head are voluntary. Good on you for managing to get yourself out of whatever tight spots you have been in, but it should go without saying that your personal circumstances do not apply to everyone in this country.
In order to get welfare (and cash assistance, which is nowhere near as easy to get or as lucrative as many seem to think), you have to prove that you're in some pretty desperate straits and really need the help. In much the same way, as I mentioned before, you have to need them in order to call the fire or police departments and have them assist you. If you don't believe me, I suggest calling them to your house just for the heck of it a few times and seeing what happens. Also, people who use drugs do need the services of fire or police from time to time. Would you deny them as well? After all, your taxpayer dollars are paying for those calls, too. No, you probably wouldn't. So why is it different when poor people need food and shelter?
I don't advocate using drugs while on assistance either, but when:
1. there are half as many drug users receiving assistance as there are in the general population, and
2. the cost to taxpayers of testing everyone to find those users was higher than just leaving everyone alone in the first place,
what is the point of mandatory testing for benefits? What is the reasoning behind it? Well... I guess I already know the answer to that.
What truly IS voluntary is buying a gun. How many of us can honestly recall one time in our lives when we absolutely needed to shoot something? I'm not really a proponent of gun control, but what's fair is fair. Either BOTH poor people in need of assistance AND potential gun owners are protected under the Bill of Rights, or NEITHER are. It shouldn't just be one or the other.
I find it interesting that you think things like needing to eat or keeping a roof over your head are voluntary. Good on you for managing to get yourself out of whatever tight spots you have been in, but it should go without saying that your personal circumstances do not apply to everyone in this country.
In order to get welfare (and cash assistance, which is nowhere near as easy to get or as lucrative as many seem to think), you have to prove that you're in some pretty desperate straits and really need the help. In much the same way, as I mentioned before, you have to need them in order to call the fire or police departments and have them assist you. If you don't believe me, I suggest calling them to your house just for the heck of it a few times and seeing what happens. Also, people who use drugs do need the services of fire or police from time to time. Would you deny them as well? After all, your taxpayer dollars are paying for those calls, too. No, you probably wouldn't. So why is it different when poor people need food and shelter?
I don't advocate using drugs while on assistance either, but when:
1. there are half as many drug users receiving assistance as there are in the general population, and
2. the cost to taxpayers of testing everyone to find those users was higher than just leaving everyone alone in the first place,
what is the point of mandatory testing for benefits? What is the reasoning behind it? Well... I guess I already know the answer to that.
What truly IS voluntary is buying a gun. How many of us can honestly recall one time in our lives when we absolutely needed to shoot something? I'm not really a proponent of gun control, but what's fair is fair. Either BOTH poor people in need of assistance AND potential gun owners are protected under the Bill of Rights, or NEITHER are. It shouldn't just be one or the other.
I never said food and shelter are voluntary. What I did say, several times, is that taking money from the government is. Can you understand the difference?
The number of drug users not on welfare is irrelevant to the topic. They are supporting their habit. Can you document where the cost to test was more than what was (or would have been) saved by not handing money to users?
Gun buyers must go through a background check prior to purchase. That is the rule. If you don't want the government going through your life, don't ask to buy a gun. It's that simple. Your point failed there, didn't it? The Bill Of Rights doesn't say anything about welfare. Fail again. Going off topic to imply that gun buying is somehow comparable to receiving welfare with little oversight...fail again.
Is there some way that these services could be diverted or used to obtain drugs? The concern seems to be that folks use the resources obtained through welfare programs to obtain drugs or other vices. To what extent that is true is another matter. I know in Memphis, I have been approached before by a guy outside of the convenience store trying to get me to buy him beer in exchange for me getting to use his EBT card. I know in TN, a huge stink was raised by some Memphis-area state legislators over the thought of prohibiting people from using their state provided welfare cash benefits at Casinos and strip clubs because "well other people can spend their money there". The key work is their money. In this case, its money coming from someone else's pocket.
It probably varies somewhat by state, but here in Ohio, actual cash assistance is very difficult to get. The only way you can get any is if you have kids, and even then, it's not much. Most forms of assistance come in the form of food stamps or discounts off rent, utilities, the cost of a cell phone, child care, etc. I have not witnessed any welfare abuse or been approached and I live in a poor neighborhood in a very poor town where I know and interact with many struggling people on assistance daily.
I know you need cash to buy things like clothing, personal care products, and cleaning supplies, but don't know how to solve the problem of those who use their cash benefits frivolously or for drugs. Maybe replacing part of the cash assistance with vouchers good for certain amounts of the aforementioned items would help clear part of it up.
I definitely don't think people should abuse the system, but do think that the Bill of Rights should apply equally to everyone.
Somewhat an aside, but in my particular line of work, I deal with cases of unemployed persons who often claim to have little money. I am truly amazed at how many still manage to get drugs and/or alcohol.
I never said food and shelter are voluntary. What I did say, several times, is that taking money from the government is. Can you understand the difference?
Can you understand that for a lot of people on welfare, actually accepting assistance, with the endless red tape and stigma that accompany it, is a last resort and therefore, NOT really a choice? What else are they supposed to do? Starve and freeze in the streets? Yes, it would be great if they could all find good-paying jobs, but circumstances prevent many of them from achieving that.
Quote:
The number of drug users not on welfare is irrelevant to the topic. They are supporting their habit. Can you document where the cost to test was more than what was (or would have been) saved by not handing money to users?
The number of drug users not on welfare is absolutely germane to the topic, because one reason Florida and other state lawmakers who instituted drug testing for welfare benefits was because they thought there were lots of people on welfare who would get kicked off. I'm sure they expected there to be at least as many as there are in the general population, if not more. The fact that there were so few when compared to the general population illustrates how wrong that conception was.
I'm sure you're just as capable of using Google as I am. If you want more, find it yourself.
Quote:
Gun buyers must go through a background check prior to purchase. That is the rule. If you don't want the government going through your life, don't ask to buy a gun. It's that simple. Your point failed there, didn't it? The Bill Of Rights doesn't say anything about welfare. Fail again. Going off topic to imply that gun buying is somehow comparable to receiving welfare with little oversight...fail again.
The consistency and efficiency in which current gun regulations are applied is a joke, but that's a topic for another thread. Either way, I suggest you go back to the OP and read it again. It was questioning the mindset of those who support drug testing for welfare beneficiaries but NOT background checks etc./gun control. Therefore, my thoughts on guns and gun control regulations (as referenced in the BILL OF RIGHTS) and how they compare to unlawful search and seizure of the bodily fluids of welfare recipients (as referenced, again, in the BILL OF RIGHTS) is not off-topic in the least. So AGAIN I say that either BOTH drug testing for welfare recipients AND gun control are okay, or NEITHER are. The Bill of Rights should not apply to one group but not the other simply because they're poor.
Sounds like you're okay with at least SOME gun control measures AND with welfare drug testing, which means we really aren't as far apart in how we feel about this as you seem to think.
Way more money is spent on corporate welfare than individual welfare. We should be testing the Koch brothers.
"Corporate welfare" Define it. Prove it.
I'm pretty conservative. 2nd amendment works for me.
But I think drug testing for welfare is a lousy idea. Utah does it. Cost them 30,000 last year and they found 12 users. Probably prevented a lot more than that, but even so...
I look for this movement to have unintended consequences that are not pretty.
Ya wanna crack down on who qualifies for welfare, have at it. But this, I believe, is a lousy idea.
Are you actually denying there is such a thing?
The US spends, by some conservative estimates, roughly $50 billion each year to provide subsidies, tax breaks/loopholes, and bailouts to corporations. The money spent on programs like SNAP (food stamps), in comparison, is a small fraction of that.
And then there is the fact that every hour American taxpayers are paying roughly $12 million to cover the costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 10+ years. But people are much more likely to be outraged by the friend of their cousin's girlfriend's neighbor who is on welfare but drives a new BMW and has the most recent iPhone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, the benefits should be a help up, not a hand out and if you can't pass a drug test, no benefits, period, consider it the price one pays for not paying their own way, as we ALL should.
Define it. Prove it.