Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 03-06-2013, 04:06 PM  
Administrator
 
samfloor's Avatar

Missouri
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,845 | Kudos: +114
Drug testing for welfare

Hmmmmmm!!!!!
Drug testing for welfare-313768_548979751790561_102939962_n.png 

__________________

__________________
AKA....Rusty, Floorist, etc.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 06:13 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
I'm willing to bet that there were some out there who chose not to even try, OR there were many who decided to stop smoking weed for a few weeks so they could pass their test.

I would almost guarantee that if you were to totally out of the blue start testing folks without them being prepared it would be far more than 2%. I mean come on, aren't there statistics that show that alot more than 2% of the population smokes pot?

It is my opinion that OVER TIME it could save money. By either not paying benefits or even moreso by possibly making someone go get a job. I know that back when I smoked pot, I loved having a job that didn't test. If I had a choice between collecting benefits (under which I would have to quit smoking pot), and getting a job where I didn't get tested I would by far prefer getting the job. And if jobs are fairly difficult to find (and for some it is) then wouldn't it help if they could pass a drug test? My point is, those numbers you cite are likely only taking 2 simple things into account when the issue is more far reaching. It is saying "..oh, it ceased benefits on 2% saving $60000 while paying for drug tests of the rest at a cost of $178 million..."... Well, that is a simpleton's way of looking at it.
__________________

__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 06:30 AM  
Administrator
 
samfloor's Avatar

Missouri
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,845 | Kudos: +114
The 178 million could have provided a nice tax cut to those who work.
__________________
AKA....Rusty, Floorist, etc.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 08:45 AM  
Senior Member
 
havasu's Avatar

California
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,747 | Kudos: +238
Images: 17
Actually, according to Snopes.com, those numbers are skewed.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 11:01 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Let's look at some numbers...

The 2012 census indicated that there were 19.3 million people living in Florida.http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...20in%20florida

This article, (http://www.drugfree.org/join-togethe...e-data-reveals) says that the tests cost $30 each.

So, if it cost $30 and it cost $178 million then they must have tested.... 5.9 million people? So more than 1/4 of the population of Florida was applying for welfare while that law went into effect??? WOW.

Let's look at this another way.... I it cost $178 million and they tested just over 4000 people in Florida (after over 1000 others didn't show up for the test....hmmm......) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...nts/53620604/1...
So, $178 million divided by 4000 people equals $44,500 (cost to drug test each person??!!??!!)... Okay, perhaps this is just a testament as to why we shouldn't have the government do ANYTHING!!!! Or, your numbers are just plain wrong.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 08:17 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Haha... throw some evidence in and everyone gets quiet... Seems fairly common around here....
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 12:25 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
the bigger issue I wanna see checked for evidence of spending that money on lottery/cigarettes or alcohol (the legal drug), if someone needs help from the state these are things that those people should not be purchasing... yes drugs are easy to check for, but I bet many recipients throw the money away on these things.
__________________
Please help babies...... http://www.intactamerica.org/
Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 06:29 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
the bigger issue I wanna see checked for evidence of spending that money on lottery/cigarettes or alcohol (the legal drug), if someone needs help from the state these are things that those people should not be purchasing... yes drugs are easy to check for, but I bet many recipients throw the money away on these things.
I definitely agree 110%. I also think that if someone needs help from the state, then they shouldn't buy cable or FANCY phones. The main thing that makes me think they should be drug tested is that it makes it more difficult to get a job if you cannot pass a drug test and they are getting the benefits because they cannot get a job. DUH!
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 06:48 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
The way I see it, if you can't get by on your own merits in a free-market society, you're going to be taking from those who can. You're "economically worthless".

We have a few options for dealing with "worthless" people.

* We could enslave them. Not morally or ethically justifiable.

* We could kill them. Not morally or ethically justifiable.

* We could put them in prison. Probably the most expensive method available. Now we have to pay someone a subsistence wage to supervise them, as well as pay for their food, shelter, basic medical expenses, etc. We decrease their employability, making them more worthless.

* We could leave them alone, let them figure out how to survive. On the books, we don't pay a thing. But, these folks are going to take what they need from somewhere, so we're paying for everything they steal. When they take $50 worth of copper from a vacant house, it costs one of us $1500 to repair, but they get to eat for a few days.

* We could directly subsidize them. Give them money/housing/phones, let them go about their business.

* We could put them to work. From each according to his ability; to each according to need.

* We could evaluate on a case-by-case basis, and offer a wide variety of programs for a wide variety of problems. Offer support services to get people back to work. Education. Secure Housing. Daycare. Interviewing skills. Offer increased direct subsidies to those increasing their employability. Make these people less worthless.

Did I miss any?
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 06:00 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
My solution is often seen as a very offensive one so I will probably keep it to myself. I think it makes PERFECT sense but oh, well.... Other than mine, yeah you pretty much covered the options.
__________________

__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.