Florida Legislation Requires Drug Tests for Welfare Benefits - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kopimi;30276190]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[/QUOTE] [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]

i retract my previous statements :v: wait, if michigan already tried this, why is florida doing it? if it's already been ruled as unconstitutional what is florida thinking that turned my view on this around completely

Political stunt, pretty much.

[QUOTE=Detective P;30275087]Yup, see, point proven.[/QUOTE] You're acting as if I said i'd support that kind of thing. If I try to bring ideology into it then i'm just told that "my opinions shouldn't be written into law" like I was earlier, if you'd read the thread. But now I suggest that we, you know, obey the law, i'm being too black and white. So i'll say it again- I'd be perfectly happy to see marijuana remain completely outlawed, medically as well. That's my "ideology", and I don't have to back it up. But that has nothing to do with whether I believe people should be punished for breaking the law or not. "Proving" your point on something I literally, in that same post, said was retarded is probably the most ridiculous thing you've posted here yet. It's impossible to bring morality into politics here on FP, because it's "ideology" and shouldn't be law. But if you ignore it, like I have been for the sake of speaking about the LAW here, not the ideology behind the law, you come in saying that it's bad that i'm not bringing ideology in. You're throwing out two entirely contradictory arguments in the same thread.

[QUOTE=Contag;30276205][/QUOTE] That seems reasonable. If there is suspicion, then I suppose it's fair, but if not, there's no reason to violate rights.

[QUOTE=Canesfan;30282276]You're acting as if I said i'd support that kind of thing. If I try to bring ideology into it then i'm just told that "my opinions shouldn't be written into law" like I was earlier, if you'd read the thread. But now I suggest that we, you know, obey the law, i'm being too black and white. So i'll say it again- I'd be perfectly happy to see marijuana remain completely outlawed, medically as well. That's my "ideology", and I don't have to back it up. But that has nothing to do with whether I believe people should be punished for breaking the law or not. "Proving" your point on something I literally, in that same post, said was retarded is probably the most ridiculous thing you've posted here yet. It's impossible to bring morality into politics here on FP, because it's "ideology" and shouldn't be law. But if you ignore it, like I have been for the sake of speaking about the LAW here, not the ideology behind the law, you come in saying that it's bad that i'm not bringing ideology in. You're throwing out two entirely contradictory arguments in the same thread.[/QUOTE] No, see, you believed I was suggesting that we charge for both, I believe you got my point wrong. You see, what I'm saying is that, since I've came into this, your statements have been simply "if its legal here and illegal there, then it's the law and should be followed." I understand that you ideologically oppose marijuana as a whole, and that's okay, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that simply looking at "law" in an issue where there's more to it than just "law" because this is a matter of morality and should be taken into account, is simply not a good place to stand. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't have a problem with ideology, and whatever people argued against your ideology is your and their thing. I'm just arguing that we need to look at the individual circumstance of drug and social benefits, because there is that whole "social" part. Plain black and white, legal and illegal, that's it, especially when the argument is over what's illegal and legal, really shouldn't be a way to think. And no, actually, even though you said it was retarded, you also said that you'd support removal of benefits if caffeine was illegal. This really just reinforces what I said. You're sacrificing your moral positions just because of law. Which is what I've been saying this whole time. And I'm not asking morality for ideology. I'm asking morality for the benefit of everyone. I'm not saying drug abusers are good and shouldn't be hindered just because they're users, I'm saying that there's alot to consider on an individual case-by-case basis, and that everything needs to be taken into account to get the best picture of who abuses the system and who doesn't, and then work from there, instead of use this bill and simply categorize everyone into junkie and saint.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;30272814] as if hardcore drug addicts are 100% peaceful, law abiding citizens otherwise[/QUOTE] as if hardcore drug addicts will be able to quit drugs because you take their only source of money away this will just make them homeless on top of being addicts [editline]6th June 2011[/editline] nevermind the fact that random drug tests[U] [url=http://washingtonindependent.com/109117/welfare-drug-testing-bill-headed-to-florida-govs-desk]cost more than they save[/url][/U][URL="http://washingtonindependent.com/109117/welfare-drug-testing-bill-headed-to-florida-govs-desk"] [/URL]

Seems like a pretty good law, it shall help deter people taking dangerous substances.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30283756]Seems like a pretty good law, it shall help deter people taking dangerous substances.[/QUOTE] nuh-uh [quote=Center for Law and Social Policy (see above)]...Random testing is a costly, flawed and inefficient way of identifying recipients in need of treatment. Better alternatives exist and are already being implemented to address drug abuse among TANF beneficiaries and ultimately reduce their barriers to work.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Canesfan;30282276]You're acting as if I said i'd support that kind of thing. If I try to bring ideology into it then i'm just told that "my opinions shouldn't be written into law" like I was earlier, if you'd read the thread. But now I suggest that we, you know, obey the law, i'm being too black and white. So i'll say it again- I'd be perfectly happy to see marijuana remain completely outlawed, medically as well. That's my "ideology", and I don't have to back it up. But that has nothing to do with whether I believe people should be punished for breaking the law or not. "Proving" your point on something I literally, in that same post, said was retarded is probably the most ridiculous thing you've posted here yet. It's impossible to bring morality into politics here on FP, because it's "ideology" and shouldn't be law. But if you ignore it, like I have been for the sake of speaking about the LAW here, not the ideology behind the law, you come in saying that it's bad that i'm not bringing ideology in. You're throwing out two entirely contradictory arguments in the same thread.[/QUOTE] So basically your ideology is believing in certain things just because the law says so. Would you propose we kept witchcraft illegal because it was at one point an illegal act?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30283756]Seems like a pretty good law, it shall help deter people taking dangerous substances.[/QUOTE] yeah just like making them illegal did