Florida Legislation Requires Drug Tests for Welfare Benefits

[Contag]

Ingest morphine/codeine/other natural opiates - say it was poppy seeds.

[Dori]

[QUOTE=Canesfan;30275054]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.[/QUOTE]

then you're a blithering moron who deserves whatever shit you get

[detectivep]

[QUOTE=Canesfan;30275004]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]

What I was trying to work around towards was that you simply don't take in any sort of moral reasoning behind any of these issues. It is simply black and white for you. And this is why I can't agree with you. Laws are important, but when there's a moral or ethical view to take into account, it should never be ignored, and with drugs and with welfare there is always, always an ethical or moral view to look at. But this bill simply ignores that, and you simply ignore any alternative to it.

And no, I'm not suggesting that we punish people for medical marijuana. I'm trying to point out that you're being morally (but not legally!) hypocritical by saying that it's okay to smoke marijuana if they do it legally here, but not okay if they do it illegally here, when in all reality, it's the same act.

For different reasons, possibly, but in order to look into those reasons there are moral and ethical points to consider on the individual circumstances for usage.

[Contag]

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30275011]
It is a is a law which has specific wording and nothing should be assumed.
[/QUOTE]

No, that's not it at all. He's quite obviously saying that the [B]basis[/B] for this law is predicated on a few assumptions.

[detectivep]

[QUOTE=Canesfan;30275054]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.[/QUOTE]

Yup, see, point proven.

[lulzbocksV2]

[QUOTE=thisispain;30275022]thanks for your input[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your input.

[QUOTE=thisispain;30275027]what numbers
there are no numbers

pay attention[/QUOTE]

You apparently don't understand your own post. Claiming that the cost of the drug tests would outweigh the increase in income does indeed include numbers. Numbers such as dollar amounts with this -> $ symbol in front or around them.

[detectivep]

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30275090]Thanks for your input.

You apparently don't understand your own post. Claiming that the cost of the drug tests would outweigh the increase in income does indeed include numbers. Numbers such as dollar amounts with this -> $ symbol in front or around them.[/QUOTE]

I do have to agree with you on this. Drug tests would not cost more than welfare payments.

[lulzbocksV2]

[QUOTE=Detective P;30275102]I do have to agree with you on this. Drug tests would not cost more than welfare payments.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your input.

[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]

Am I arguing now?

[detectivep]

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30275106]Thanks for your input.

[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]

Am I arguing now?[/QUOTE]
I don't know. Are you arguing? With who[b]m[/b]? About what?

[thisispain]

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30275090]
You apparently don't understand your own post. Claiming that the cost of the drug tests would outweigh the increase in income does indeed include numbers. Numbers such as dollar amounts with this -> $ symbol in front or around them.[/QUOTE]

you're asking me to tell you how much money florida would potentially "save" by drug testing its beneficiaries

i can't do that

what i can do is counter the claim that it [b]would[/b] "save" florida money by suggesting they'd have to spend a shit load of money drug testing every single person who receives welfare.

is this understood or do i have to regurgitate it

[Dori]

whom*

[lulzbocksV2]

[QUOTE=thisispain;30275124]you're asking me to tell you how much money florida would potentially "save" by drug testing its beneficiaries

i can't do that

what i can do is counter the claim that it [b]would[/b] "save" florida money by suggesting they'd have to spend a shit load of money drug testing every single person who receives welfare.

is this understood or do i have to regurgitate it[/QUOTE]

OK so your official figure on how much they would spend is a "shit load".

Thank you for beginning to understand how to interact in a conversation with multiple points of view.

[HumanAbyss]

Just so everyone knows, this only really stops people that smoke pot from being able to be on welfare. Most other drugs metabolize and burn out of your system in just a few days. Pot stays for almost a month for most people.

It seems a little backwards to me, but whatever.

[editline]5th June 2011[/editline]

[QUOTE=Canesfan;30275054]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.[/QUOTE]

Uh, yes, that's very ideological. How you don't see that is beyond me.

"HURP DURP I SUPPORT LAWS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE THE LAW IS THE LAW AND THE LAW IS ALWAYS RIGHT.". That's the most assbackwards way to think.

[thisispain]

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30275144]OK so your official figure on how much they would spend is a "shit load".

Thank you for beginning to understand how to interact in a conversation with multiple points of view.[/QUOTE]

how you can call out anyone else over shitposting is beyond me

[detectivep]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30275155]Just so everyone knows, this only really stops people that smoke pot from being able to be on welfare. Most other drugs metabolize and burn out of your system in just a few days. Pot stays for almost a month for most people.

It seems a little backwards to me, but whatever.[/QUOTE]

This is true for urine tests, but not blood tests. I doubt that the government would do blood tests,b ut it's possible.

And I know that not all drugs are gone from blood in just a few days. I've read alot of monthly blood tests on methadone users and the ones that used even infrequently still showed.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=Detective P;30275196]This is true for urine tests, but not blood tests. I doubt that the government would do blood tests,b ut it's possible.

And I know that not all drugs are gone from blood in just a few days. I've read alot of monthly blood tests on methadone users and the ones that used even infrequently still showed.[/QUOTE]

But blood tests take longer and cost more money and actually require funds to do, I also doubt that they would.

Yeah, but that's methadone. Hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, and meth are out of your urine system in a few days. E, acid, and shrooms, same deal. Most, but certainly not all. It's just a bit of a loop hole imo.

[lulzbocksV2]

[QUOTE=thisispain;30275186]how you can call out anyone else over shitposting is beyond me[/QUOTE]

I don't see a shitpost. You're just flamebaiting now.

[detectivep]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30275205]But blood tests take longer and cost more money and actually require funds to do, I also doubt that they would.

Yeah, but that's methadone. Hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, and meth are out of your urine system in a few days. E, acid, and shrooms, same deal. Most, but certainly not all. It's just a bit of a loop hole imo.[/QUOTE]

I meant when they test for drugs other than the methadone. The lab reports had a list of four: some sort of -phetamine, methadone, I think cocaine, and something else. But thats besides the point and pretty much irrelevant.

[Contag]

For it to be effective they would have to do a hair analysis every 90 days, which would cost $400-$2000 a year, not including administration or oversight costs (basically, assuming everyone collects their own hair and mails it to the lab).

With the ~115,000 people receiving welfare at the moment in florida, that's $46M - $230M.

Now, that's how much it would cost for the tests alone if this wasn't just a political stunt. Which it is.

[quote]Officials estimate the initial screenings would cost about $10 per person[/quote]
So they're probably using the cheapest possible test, which detects metabolites of drugs on a subweek timescale.

[quote]TANF recipients are eligible for cash assistance for a lifetime cumulative total of 48 months, and their eligibility is checked every six months.[/quote]

So these people aren't lifetime welfare leeches, and evidently can't be, being able to receive it for a mere 4 years.

Even then, as they tested only every six months with a cheap-as-dirt onsite testing appartus, the safest option to simply not ingest drugs for two months of every year.

[quote]In 1999, Michigan began drug-testing all welfare recipients, prompting the ACLU to sue. In 2003, a federal appeals court ruled that universal testing was unconstitutional, and the ACLU and the state reached an agreement that allowed drug tests of welfare recipients only if there was reasonable suspicion that the person was using drugs.[/quote]

So it's doubtful that the bill will survive a few months.

Useless political stunt, by a useless governor.

[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30275155]Just so everyone knows, this only really stops people that smoke pot from being able to be on welfare. Most other drugs metabolize and burn out of your system in just a few days. Pot stays for almost a month for most people.

It seems a little backwards to me, but whatever.

[/QUOTE]

[quote=wiki]Myth: Cannabis remains detectable in urine for 30 days or more

While this is technically true in some cases, more recent studies have shown that detection times of 30+ days are actually quite exceptional, even for chronic users subjected to tests with lower than normal cutoffs. Under the typical 50 ng/mL cutoff for THC in the United States, an occasional or one-off user would be very unlikely to test positive beyond 3–4 days since the last use, and a chronic user would be unlikely to test positive much beyond 10 days. Using a more sensitive cutoff of 20 ng/mL (less common but still used by some labs), the most likely maximum times are 7 days and 21 days, respectively.[/quote]

[detectivep]

[QUOTE=Contag;30275257]For it to be effective they would have to do a hair analysis every 90 days, which would cost $400-$2000 a year, not including administration or oversight costs (basically, assuming everyone collects their own hair and mails it to the lab).

With the ~115,000 people receiving welfare at the moment in florida, that's $46M - $230M.

Now, that's how much it would cost for the tests alone if this wasn't just a political stunt. Which it is.

So they're probably using the cheapest possible test, which detects metabolites of drugs on a subweek timescale.

So these people aren't lifetime welfare leeches, and evidently can't be, being able to receive it for a mere 4 years.

Even then, as they tested only every six months with a cheap-as-dirt onsite testing appartus, the safest option to simply not ingest drugs for two months of every year.

So it's doubtful that the bill will survive a few months.

Useless political stunt, by a useless governor.

[editline]6th June 2011[/editline][/QUOTE]

Hard facts up in this biznitch.

[Ronin]

Re-read the OP about six or seven times, now I'm torn. Sure, some people definitely do not deserve the welfare benefits because let's face it, they'd probably use some or all the money to fuel their addiction and (potentially) not change a thing. However in the grand scheme of things, this is of a massive waste of money, time, and human resources. And the majority are NOT drug users, but rather folks who are down on their luck when it comes to jobs.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=Contag;30275257]For it to be effective they would have to do a hair analysis every 90 days, which would cost $400-$2000 a year, not including administration or oversight costs (basically, assuming everyone collects their own hair and mails it to the lab).

With the ~115,000 people receiving welfare at the moment in florida, that's $46M - $230M.

Now, that's how much it would cost for the tests alone if this wasn't just a political stunt. Which it is.

So they're probably using the cheapest possible test, which detects metabolites of drugs on a subweek timescale.

So these people aren't lifetime welfare leeches, and evidently can't be, being able to receive it for a mere 4 years.

Even then, as they tested only every six months with a cheap-as-dirt onsite testing appartus, the safest option to simply not ingest drugs for two months of every year.

So it's doubtful that the bill will survive a few months.

Useless political stunt, by a useless governor.

[editline]6th June 2011[/editline][/QUOTE]

I did not know that. rated informative.

[Gmod4ever]

The core goal of the bill, which is to cut down on people using government-supplied benefits for destructive habits, I agree with.

That's about it, though.

As much as I tend to conflict with thisispain, I will pretty much have to agree with everything he's said in this thread. The "war on drugs" was a lost cause from the start, and is hemorrhaging money that could be used for other things, such as education (in general, not just drug education) and rehabilitation.

That's my opinion on this issue.

[Ziron]

political stunts to spite the poor rule!!!!!

[thisispain]

[QUOTE=Contag;30275257]
Useless political stunt, by a useless governor.[/QUOTE]

pretty much what i was saying except with more numbers and eloquent words

[Capitulazyguy]

[QUOTE=thisispain;30272864]i'd like to see the data supporting this assertion that people on welfare spend money on drugs[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously saying that you don't think they do?

[Zeke129]

So does facepunch not care about the 4th amendment or what

I may be a dirty foreigner but it seems the protection against unreasonable search is kind of a big deal in America and one of the things that you guys are really proud of

We have the same thing but it's the dirty foreigner version

[Ziron]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30276123]So does facepunch not care about the 4th amendment or what

I may be a dirty foreigner but it seems the protection against unreasonable search is kind of a big deal in America and one of the things that you guys are really proud of

We have the same thing but it's the dirty foreigner version[/QUOTE]

nobody in the usa cares about the 4th amendment anymore.

[Zeke129]

[QUOTE=Ziron;30276142]nobody in the usa cares about the 4th amendment anymore.[/QUOTE]

until their own rights start getting violated, but by then they can't do anything about it because the problem was ignored too long

[rrkpp_]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30276123]So does facepunch not care about the 4th amendment or what

I may be a dirty foreigner but it seems the protection against unreasonable search is kind of a big deal in America and one of the things that you guys are really proud of

We have the same thing but it's the dirty foreigner version[/QUOTE]

it's not a violation of the 4th ammendment because it's consensual
if you don't want to take the test, thats fine, but you don't get your government run welfare if you don't.

it'd only be a violation if they forced you to do it and you had no choice but to comply