Florida Legislation Requires Drug Tests for Welfare Benefits - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Detective P;30274525]Right, but apply this method to the whole nation. This exact same law is being pushed in several other states, including Michigan, where I am and where medical is legal.[/QUOTE] Well then I'm sure the people with prescriptions to marijuana can explain why the drug test might come back positive. I see no problem here.

[QUOTE=Bryanrocks0;30274540]Well then I'm sure the people with prescriptions to marijuana can explain why the drug test might come back positive. I see no problem here.[/QUOTE] I'm sure they could. But again, if we applied this exact law in such circumstance, which probably will happen, then we're looking at the person with the medical being fucked over. Now I understand [i]if[/i] it happened here, then it probably would be allowed. I'm asking Canes, who supports this law, if it is acceptable for a person to lose their welfare based on medical marijuana.

[QUOTE=Detective P;30274576]I'm sure they could. But again, if we applied this exact law in such circumstance, which probably will happen, then we're looking at the person with the medical being fucked over. Now I understand [i]if[/i] it happened here, then it probably would be allowed. I'm asking Canes, who supports this law, if it is acceptable for a person to lose their welfare based on medical marijuana.[/QUOTE] The exact law wouldn't travel from state to state. Each state would have their own version of it. Just like taking a pee test for a job, this is taking a pee test for money.

[QUOTE=Detective P;30274487]How about people who don't use their welfare money for drug use? How about people who are addicted but can't afford medical treatment? -[B]This is where funded rehab centers come in. There are ways to get help.[/B] How about people who use medical marijuana? -[B]This is obviously easy to prove with a prescription, etc.[/B] How about people on a medically-assisted weaning from an illegal drug? -[B]Again doctor's note.[/B] How about someone on a methadone treatment? -[B]See above.[/B] How about someone on a methadone treatment in a state that does not condone methadone? -[B]Doctor's note if it's from another state or else they shouldn't be on the treatment in their state.[/B] How about someone who has a manageable drug habit that is not a problem, and that they don't spend welfare money on, but still need welfare? -[B]Should still be spending that drug money on what welfare should be paying for. Or treatment.[/B] What if someone was on drugs and then got laid off, should they receive unemployment benefits if they quit once they were laid off? -[B]No, they shouldn't until they're clean. Having a job is no more of an excuse to break the law.[/B] If the minor does drugs, should they receive benefits? -[B]No, why should they?[/B] Just some questions I would like to see your opinion on. Because under this, all but two of those actually will not allow a family to receive welfare benefits.[/QUOTE] There you go. And no, obviously it's not acceptable for them to lose their welfare payments if they're not breaking any laws.

yeah sorry, i still support the law. as unfortunate as america's drug policy is, i think people should be able to pass a drug test if they want welfare.

[QUOTE=Bryanrocks0;30274591]The exact law wouldn't travel from state to state. Each state would have their own version of it. Just like taking a pee test for a job, this is taking a pee test for money.[/QUOTE] Variations of it, sure. but the basic structure with all the problematic points still exists. And no, actually, it's not, at all like that. Because being taught English as an immigrant, and being able to afford to get an education, and being able to live when you're 85 years old, are completely the same as not getting a job. Because you can always just go apply at the next government, right? This law completely destroys any sort of individual circumstance and screws over everyone. It also makes the assumption that if you take drugs, and you get welfare, you're obviously an addict and use your welfare money to pay for your willing addiction. In my mind this is an invasion of privacy and a limitation of liberty, but the whole drug thing is illegal, so they do have the right to cut off benefits to a drug abuser [i]who it is fully known uses those benefits to fund their drug abuse[/i]. I'm asking for an individual take on circumstance. Not a clumping.

There is no problem with this law and those who disagree with it (in this thread) are creating nonexistent issues to oppose it.

[QUOTE=Canesfan;30274644]There you go. And no, obviously it's not acceptable for them to lose their welfare payments if they're not breaking any laws.[/QUOTE] Didn't answer the first question. It still costs money to get any form of medical treatment for drug counseling or medical assistance, unless you're getting [i]welfare[/i] to pay for it. Medical marijuana users still use a drug. Why is it acceptable to fund them if they have a prescription? What if they abuse medical marijuana, that is, don't really need it? Under this law, medical-assisted weaning is still considered grounds for welfare termination. Methadone treatment is tricky. In Florida, I believe, it is accepted by the government, but in many states the issue is very tricky. The state doe snot legally recognize the medical applications of methadone, and will not fund it, but doe snot oppose it or stop it. In states like this, this would be ground for termination of benefits. Drug money won't pay a months' necessities, or for education, or medical costs. Here, 20$ will get me a good weeks worth of weed. If I need 150$ to feed myself and my family, I don't think spending 20$ of my own money is going to do much. I'll still need the benefits to feed my family, or to get my medical treatment, or to pay off my education costs, or to afford to do what I need to do to get by. I said that the person was laid off and then quit. So they are clean. But it would be in their system still. They wouldn't get benefits, and likely wouldn't get them at all in the future even if they showed up clean, because of having one false test. The'd get fucked. I meant if the minor does drugs, should the family get benefits. See, this whole thing steps on morality and ethics and ignores a simple solution to a complex problem. And instead of accepting that an alternative would work best for everyone, or just letting people mind their business and take care of their own affairs, this law simply goes and harms people because of what happens to them. There are too many circumstances and too many potential welfare benefit usages to ignore here, but this law does just that. [editline]6th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30274791]There is no problem with this law and those who disagree with it (in this thread) are creating nonexistent issues to oppose it.[/QUOTE] These are existent issues. Every one I posted, I've actually known one person at least who is in a situation where an issue I've posted would be a problem should our version of this law pass.

[QUOTE=Detective P;30274806]These are existent issues. Every one I posted, I've actually known one person at least who is in a situation where an issue I've posted would be a problem should our version of this law pass.[/QUOTE] There are no issues. You are creating false dilemmas with these questions you keep asking.

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30274860]There are no issues. You are creating false dilemmas with these questions you keep asking.[/QUOTE] During 8 months volunteering twice weekly at Victory Methadone Clinic in Saginaw Michigan and shadowing someone who was interning as a drug assistance counselor for a bachelors in social work at Saginaw Valley State University, I know at least one person who is in each of those circumstances, and each of those circumstances (except the medical marijuana) would cause them to lose government benefits if the bill that is proposed for my state, and the version of it that passed in Florida (excluding methadone), were to go through. You say these are false dilemmas, and I guess you're right. There would be no dilemma, because under these laws all of these people are equally fucked. No dilemma there when you absolutely know that it's the moral thing to do, that every drug use or abuse deserves no cent of aid.

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30274791]There is no problem with this law and those who disagree with it (in this thread) are creating nonexistent issues to oppose it.[/QUOTE] Except for the fact that its a step in the wrong direction in fixing this nation's supposed drug 'problem' by, once again, punishing drug users instead of trying to promote rehabilitation and education, as well as being a blanket solution that could potentially harm the wrong people.

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;30274907]Except for the fact that its a step in the wrong direction in fixing this nation's supposed drug 'problem' by, once again, punishing drug users instead of trying to promote rehabilitation and education, as well as being a blanket solution that could potentially harm the wrong people.[/QUOTE] Yes, thank you.

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30274860]There are no issues.[/QUOTE] lol that's not how it works you can't just declare that and be done with it you know what Yes, there are issues.

[QUOTE=Detective P;30274902]During 8 months volunteering twice weekly at Victory Methadone Clinic in Saginaw Michigan and shadowing someone who was interning as a drug assistance counselor for a bachelors in social work at Saginaw Valley State University, I know at least one person who is in each of those circumstances, and each of those circumstances (except the medical marijuana) would cause them to lose government benefits if the bill that is proposed for my state, and the version of it that passed in Florida (excluding methadone), were to go through. You say these are false dilemmas, and I guess you're right. There would be no dilemma, because under these laws all of these people are equally fucked. No dilemma there when you absolutely know that it's the moral thing to do, that every drug use or abuse deserves no cent of aid.[/QUOTE] A false dilemma is assuming that something is black and white. In this case, you have assumed that, for example, someone using a substance in order to treat an illness (such as medical marijuana) would not be permitted access to welfare in Florida. however, you assume that there can be zero exceptions made, which would be insane.

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30274923]A false dilemma is assuming that something is black and white. In this case, you have assumed that, for example, someone using a substance in order to treat an illness (such as medical marijuana) would not be permitted access to welfare in Florida. however, you assume that there can be zero exceptions made, which would be insane.[/QUOTE] This bill is black and white. I'm asking for the complete opposite. And I've already explained the medical marijuana, apparently you missed the two times where I explained why I asked that, and the two where I explained that it would be an exception in states where medical is legal.

[QUOTE=thisispain;30274917]lol that's not how it works you can't just declare that and be done with it you know what Yes, there are issues.[/QUOTE] Fuck you. You've been shitposting for years and I'm literally astonished that no one has permabanned you yet. I have not yet seen a legitimate issue with this bill. Everything stated here in opposition to it has been assumed. [editline]6th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Detective P;30274942]This bill is black and white. I'm asking for the complete opposite. And I've already explained the medical marijuana, apparently you missed the two times where I explained why I asked that, and the two where I explained that it would be an exception in states where medical is legal.[/QUOTE] What I'm wondering is how someone would be using medical marijuana in Florida when it is clearly illegal. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Starpluck))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30274945]Fuck you. You've been shitposting for years and I'm literally astonished that no one has permabanned you yet.[/QUOTE] where are your manners [QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30274945]I have not yet seen a legitimate issue with this bill. Everything stated here in opposition to it has been assumed.[/QUOTE] that's funny because the entire premise to the bill is an assumed one

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30274945]F What I'm wondering is how someone would be using medical marijuana in Florida when it is clearly illegal.[/QUOTE] Holy shit. Really? Really? I actually had a single post that directly was related to explaining THAT exactly.

[QUOTE=Detective P;30274912]Medical marijuana users still use a drug. Why is it acceptable to fund them if they have a prescription? What if they abuse medical marijuana, that is, don't really need it?[/QUOTE] There's nothing I can do then can I? They're not breaking a law, they shouldn't be punished. It's not an optimal situation obviously but in this case if they aren't breaking the law there's nothing to be done, regardless of how bad the action is.

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;30274907]Except for the fact that its a step in the wrong direction in fixing this nation's supposed drug 'problem' by, once again, punishing drug users instead of trying to promote rehabilitation and education, as well as being a blanket solution that could potentially harm the wrong people.[/QUOTE] This legislation, coupled with increased rehabilitation, would not be punishing anyone, but would be helping the State of Florida save valuable resources which could be used to help somewhere else.

[QUOTE=Canesfan;30274969]There's nothing I can do then can I? They're not breaking a law, they shouldn't be punished. It's not an optimal situation obviously but in this case if they aren't breaking the law there's nothing to be done, regardless of how bad the action is.[/QUOTE] So basically, what you're saying, is that it's just black and white legal and illegal. If you do something legal, there's no issues. If you do something illegal, then there's issues. Eve if it's the same action. Is this correct in what you're saying?

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30274971]but would be helping the State of Florida save valuable resources which could be used to help somewhere else.[/QUOTE] again that's only assumed i'm pretty certain the cost of doing drug tests would be higher than the amount of drug users they'll bust, especially because it's a drug test and drugs don't stay in your body the logistics of the bill don't work so it's blatantly obvious it's an ideological bill made to further a narrative how's that for an issue

[QUOTE=Detective P;30274987]So basically, what you're saying, is that it's just black and white legal and illegal. If you do something legal, there's no issues. If you do something illegal, then there's issues. Eve if it's the same action. Is this correct in what you're saying?[/QUOTE] That's exactly what i'm saying. I wish I could punish someone for abusing something like that, but are you really suggesting we punish people for doing something they've technically been legally informed they can do? I feel like we've switched sides here, but i'm not going to suggest we punish people for actions that are technically inside of the law. Ideally abuse would be prevented by doctors not prescribing wrong amounts, etc.

[QUOTE=thisispain;30274960]where are your manners[/quote] I fail to see any poor manners in that post. [quote]that's funny because the entire premise to the bill is an assumed one[/QUOTE] It is a is a law which has specific wording and nothing should be assumed. [editline]6th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;30275000]again that's only assumed i'm pretty certain the cost of doing drug tests would be higher than the amount of drug users they'll bust, especially because it's a drug test and drugs don't stay in your body the logistics of the bill don't work so it's blatantly obvious it's an ideological bill made to further a narrative how's that for an issue[/QUOTE] Numbers please. Otherwise there is no issue.

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30275011]I fail to see any poor manners in that post.[/QUOTE] [quote]Fuck you.[/quote] [QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30275011]It is a is a law which has specific wording and nothing should be assumed.[/QUOTE] thanks for your input

if people should not receive welfare for consuming marijuana or other harmless illegal drugs then they should not receive welfare for consuming caffeine, alcohol or nicotine as well this whole bill is ideological bullshit that makes no real sense

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30274971]This legislation, coupled with increased rehabilitation, would not be punishing anyone, but would be helping the State of Florida save valuable resources which could be used to help somewhere else.[/QUOTE] Rehabilitation costs money from individuals, firstly. Secondly, you can't necessarily rehabilitate someone from a recreational or habitual use. Thirdly, letting people potentially die, or at least harming their ability to live and prosper at the same level as everyone else does not help their drug problem, nor would it push them to rehabilitation.

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30275011] Numbers please. Otherwise there is no issue.[/QUOTE] what numbers there are no numbers pay attention

[QUOTE=Sanius;30275023]if people should not receive welfare for consuming marijuana or other harmless illegal drugs then they should not receive welfare for consuming caffeine, alcohol or nicotine as well this whole bill is ideological bullshit that makes no real sense[/QUOTE] There's nothing ideological about punishing people for breaking the law. If caffeine was illegal i'd be for taking benefits away for consuming that as well, retarded as that idea may be.

There are better ways to fix people's drug problems.