Take drugs, don't get welfare.

SugarHigh

If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free.

Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill on Tuesday that requires benefit recipients to undergo drug testing.

Applicants for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment.

Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving the funds for three years.
"While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Scott said. "This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars."

If welfare candidates pass the drug screening, they'll be reimbursed for the test.

The legislation instantly came under a barrage of criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union and several of the Sunshine State's Democrats. They argued the bill is an invasion of privacy.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/01/2011-06-01_florida_gov_rick_scott_signs_law_requiring_welfare_recipients_to_take_drug_test_.html

While I don't like the idea of giving people welfare so they can buy drugs surely taking that money away will just cause crime and homelessness.

What I really don't like about this is that Governor Rick Scott also happens to have shares in Solantic which is the biggest drug screening company in Florida.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/gov-rick-scott-solantic-and-conflict-of-interest-whats-the-deal/1161158

He had $62 million worth of shares that he transferred to his wife so it isn't technically considered a conflict of interest. If you read the article the guy regularly favors legislation that benefits his wifes company.

Matthew23

Well the people who are on drugs probebly need to be given help more than anyone, seems like they should get the dole.

drunkmonkey

I think that's fair enough but what I'd really like to see happen here is that tue 100,000 odd people here employed in the illegal drugs trade here were made into tax payees instead of spongers.
It will take leagilisng drugs to do that. According to the UN that's what we should be doing but I can't see it happening while we have an ex school teacher from mayo running the show.

phasers

Seems fair, I'd say it'll lead to a rise in crime though

amacachi

Here we go again...

SugarHigh

phasers wrote: »

Seems fair, I'd say it'll lead to a rise in crime though

So is it really worth it then? Surely the cost of fighting the crime will end up equaling the money saved, not to mention all the extra victims you now have.

Why stop at the homeless? Test everyone and cut off benefits accordingly :rolleyes:

Caught having a spliff? No tax credits for ten years and motor tax trebled.

Pauleta

amacachi wrote: »

Here we go again...

On my own, going down the only road ive ever known, like a difter i was born to walk alone, and ive made up my mind, i aint wasting no more time. HERE I GO AGAIN, HERE I GO AGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN! :guitar solo:

Seachmall

I think we should control what welfare money is spent on but if a person has a few bob of their own they should be allowed to spend that on whatever.

E.g. A guy is out of work and broke, he claims welfare and spends that on his necessities (food, electricity etc.) but if he gets offered a once-off odd-job (e.g. fixing a neighbour's fence) then he should be able to spend the money earned from that on anything he wants (drink, weed, poker, etc.). We have a right to control what people spend our taxes on, we don't have a right to control what people spend their own money on.

Food stamps are good in concept but a little degrading for the person, maybe give them a bank card with X amount of credit for spending on essentials or something like that.

Eric Cartman

excellent, brilliant idea

Truley

Jesus wept! Sometimes I think people want to live in a George Orwell novel.

ScumLord

Life imitating after hours.

Sir Oxman

I love how most replies completely ignore the fact the only reason this politician is doing this is to make himself money - and lots of it.

Eric Cartman

gambiaman wrote: »

I love how most replies completely ignore the fact the only reason this politician is doing this is to make himself money - and lots of it.

no, i saw that, fair play to him

dr.bollocko

Truley wrote: »

Jesus wept! Sometimes I think people want to live in a George Orwell novel.

I want to live in a Huxley novel.
Not this no good nuxley hovel.

120_Minutes

rarnes1 wrote: »

Caught having a spliff? No tax credits for ten years and motor tax trebled.

I would like to hear your reasoning as to why you feel having a solitary spliff deserves this kind of punishment.

Without passing your opinion off as fact of course....

dr.bollocko

120_Minutes wrote: »

I would like to hear your reasoning as to why you feel having a solitary spliff deserves this kind of punishment.

Without passing your opinion off as fact of course....

Because those reeferheads will kill our children.
War on drugs. #winning.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

We had this argument a few weeks ago if I recall correctly. And it was a train-wreck. Anyway I think its a ridiculous policy- are they going to start testing people for alcohol?

RichieC

SugarHigh wrote: »

He had $62 million worth of shares that he transferred to his wife so it isn't technically considered a conflict of interest. If you read the article the guy regularly favors legislation that benefits his wifes company.

this isn't considered an outrage in the US...

Sir Oxman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

no, i saw that, fair play to him

Ah good so - nothing like a bit of corrupt governance to please the plebs.

MagicSean

Why not just start off easy and bring it in for people convicted of drugs offences?

Greentopia

Eric Cartman wrote: »

no, i saw that, fair play to him

And what he's doing is ok if it makes him money even if he does it off the backs of other people's misery is it? Nice :rolleyes:

UsernameInUse

I think it's disgraceful that a person that takes full responsibility for their actions, cannot consume as many drugs as they want - coke, gear, yokes, you name it. But then again, I think it's disgraceful that a person that takes full responsibility for their actions, receives welfare in the form of cash and not food stamps.

El Weirdo

UsernameInUse wrote: »

I think it's disgraceful that a person that takes full responsibility for their actions, cannot consume as many drugs as they want - coke, gear, yokes, you name it. But then again, I think it's disgraceful that a person that takes full responsibility for their actions, receives welfare in the form of cash and not food stamps.

People would find it pretty hard to pay their mortgages and ESB bills with food stamps.

RussellTuring

ScumLord wrote: »

Life imitating after hours.

This was announced before that thread was started.

Anyway, apart from the fact that it's blatant corruption, what is this ostensibly for? If it's supposed to save money, why specifically target drug users? This is giving the message that you can be convicted of serious crimes like rape and murder and when you've done your time, you can go straight to the welfare office and get what you need but if you are found to have taken drugs in your own time, without harming anybody else or even, you know, GETTING CHARGED WITH A CRIME, then you'll be stripped of your support.

This is before we even think what will happen after people test positive. Assuming that they were perfectly able to get a job and just weren't bothered, how good is it going to look to a potential employer when they find out you were kicked off welfare for using drugs? If I found myself with no hope of getting a job and no other social support to get by, I don't think it would be long before I start breaking the law to survive.

Maybe it's supposed to be a way to discourage people from using illegal drugs. Now, I didn't think that this would have to be pointed out but one very big reason people start to use drugs at a chronic level and use harder ones is suddenly finding yourself in a worse situation economically.

Any time we investigate this, we see that when people are allowed to use drugs without harsh repercussions such as this, they inevitably start to use them less often, with the inverse being true also. This bodes some strange eruption in the state.

Mike 1972

Take drugs, don't get welfare.

Sounds fair enough.

PROVIDED I can send in a urine sample with my next tax return and not have to pay anything in the event of it testing positive !

Herb Powell

rarnes1 wrote: »

Why stop at the homeless? Test everyone and cut off benefits accordingly :rolleyes:

Caught having a spliff? No tax credits for ten years and motor tax trebled.

Jesus Christ

Mike 1972

Herb Powell wrote: »

Jesus Christ

I had put that post down as satire/parody but one never can tell...........

Herb Powell

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I had put that post down as satire/parody but one never can tell...........

Hopefully

Snake Pliisken

AFAIR the governor actually has a stake in the company that are making the piss tests and has a history of grabbing public cash...

SugarHigh

Snake Pliisken wrote: »

AFAIR the governor actually has a stake in the company that are making the piss tests and has a history of grabbing public cash...

Yea, no ****. Maybe you should read the thread or at the very least the OP before posting.

liah

Honestly it just looks like they want to justify the War on Drugs by forcing potentially thousands of people into (probably drug-related) crime. They can't be naive enough to think that that decision is going to result in anything less, surely?

Overheal

RichieC wrote: »

this isn't considered an outrage in the US...

I assume you took a poll on that estimate before you opened your mouth?

MagicSean

liah wrote: »

Honestly it just looks like they want to justify the War on Drugs by forcing potentially thousands of people into (probably drug-related) crime. They can't be naive enough to think that that decision is going to result in anything less, surely?

It forces nobody into crime. People may choose to engage in crime to support their habit but that is completely their choice.

tiger55

How can people afford to buy drugs if they on welfare?

oh, stealing and robbing i guess.

Overheal

tiger55 wrote: »

How can people afford to buy drugs if they on welfare?

oh, stealing and robbing i guess.

Not necessarily. You can still get unemployment if you lived at home and didn't pay rent. Just one example. There are many, most of which have nothing to do with crime.

liah

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It forces nobody into crime. People may choose to engage in crime to support their habit but that is completely their choice.

Have you been to the States? Like, places where stuff like this would matter?

It will force them to crime. These obviously aren't the people who want to abide by the rules or they probably haven't been given a viable chance to. These are people who probably are disadvantaged in some way (poor, uneducated, etc) and have little to no job prospects and probably families to support. They probably can't do crap legally. If they're already familiar with drugs, it would be far more natural to them to turn to dealing than actually going out and getting a job (which they may not even have a chance of finding). It's what they know, what surrounds them, and it's only natural to assume it's probably going to be what they're going to turn to if their welfare is removed.

You can't force people to live by the rules by cutting off their supply of cash - they'll just turn to other, much easier, and more illegal ways of getting money. What this does is 'justify' the War on Drugs to people who don't actually understand that the only reason there's drug-related crime at all is because the government decided there should be by not allowing us freedom to do what we want with our bodies. It doesn't actually need to be like that.

It's a matter of choosing between two evils, sure (one being placate those who may be undeserving to keep peace for everyone, the other being increase the crime rate significantly and put everyone in danger); but in my mind, it's very clear which is the most destructive evil, and allowing people who do drugs to go on welfare isn't it. If you honestly think this won't cause an increase in crime, I'd have to consider how realistically you were really looking at it.

RichieC

Overheal wrote: »

I assume you took a poll on that estimate before you opened your mouth?

I didn't, I saw Dick Cheney as vice president twice.

joseph brand

He looks absolutely insane. (Scott)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rick_Scott_official_portrait.jpg

I would NOT trust that man. Looks like he had a large bowl of 'crazy' for breakfast.

MagicSean

liah wrote: »

Have you been to the States? Like, places where stuff like this would matter?

It will force them to crime. These obviously aren't the people who want to abide by the rules or they probably haven't been given a viable chance to. These are people who probably are disadvantaged in some way (poor, uneducated, etc) and have little to no job prospects and probably families to support. They probably can't do crap legally. If they're already familiar with drugs, it would be far more natural to them to turn to dealing than actually going out and getting a job (which they may not even have a chance of finding). It's what they know, what surrounds them, and it's only natural to assume it's probably going to be what they're going to turn to if their welfare is removed.

You can't force people to live by the rules by cutting off their supply of cash - they'll just turn to other, much easier, and more illegal ways of getting money. What this does is 'justify' the War on Drugs to people who don't actually understand that the only reason there's drug-related crime at all is because the government decided there should be by not allowing us freedom to do what we want with our bodies. It doesn't actually need to be like that.

It's a matter of choosing between two evils, sure (one being placate those who may be undeserving to keep peace for everyone, the other being increase the crime rate significantly and put everyone in danger); but in my mind, it's very clear which is the most destructive evil, and allowing people who do drugs to go on welfare isn't it. If you honestly think this won't cause an increase in crime, I'd have to consider how realistically you were really looking at it.

I didn't say it wouldn't cause an increase in crime. My problem is with your idea that people wouldn't have a choice in the matter. They choose to keep taken drugs. They choose to fund the habit by committing crime.

RichieC

joseph brand wrote: »

He looks absolutely insane. (Scott)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rick_Scott_official_portrait.jpg

I would NOT trust that man. Looks like he had a large bowl of 'crazy' for breakfast.

He's scum republican.. you've good instincts, Padawan

SugarHigh

RichieC wrote: »

He's scum republican.. you've good instincts, Padawan

It's hilarious how the average Irish persons understanding of American politics amounts to.
Democratic = good
Republican = bad.


I'm not saying this guy isn't it a dick but it has nothing to do with being a republican.

joseph brand

SugarHigh wrote: »

It's hilarious how the average Irish persons understanding of American politics amounts to.
Democratic = good
Republican = bad.


I'm not saying this guy isn't it a dick but it has nothing to do with being a republican.

It's not THAT hilarious.

Here it's:
FF = Very bad
FG = Not as bad as FF
SF = Bombers

Also, Republicans themselves are to blame for their image. Sarah Palin had breakfast with God most mornings and Bush was, eh well, he wasn't any better.

Naikon

Truley wrote: »

Jesus wept! Sometimes I think people want to live in a George Orwell novel.

We already do.

MagicSean

Naikon wrote: »

We already do.

This pisses me off. Why don't you try living in North Korea if we are so opressed here. Might find the freedom you're looking for there. You might also realise what true opression is.

Show Time

gambiaman wrote: »

I love how most replies completely ignore the fact the only reason this politician is doing this is to make himself money - and lots of it.

It's his wife making the money, He was smart enough to sign the shares over to her.

liah

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I didn't say it wouldn't cause an increase in crime. My problem is with your idea that people wouldn't have a choice in the matter. They choose to keep taken drugs. They choose to fund the habit by committing crime.

And you believe it's really that black and white? You're glossing over the reasons why they have the habits in the first place. Hint: it's not because of the drugs.

MagicSean

liah wrote: »

And you believe it's really that black and white? You're glossing over the reasons why they have the habits in the first place. Hint: it's not because of the drugs.

It's still a choice. There are many people in ****ty circumstances who choose not to go down that path.

Seachmall

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It's still a choice. There are many people in ****ty circumstances who choose not to go down that path.

Nobodies circumstances are the exact same. Even people who live in the same tax bracket on the same street are influenced by different factors with regards to drugs.

liah

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It's still a choice. There are many people in ****ty circumstances who choose not to go down that path.

It's a choice heavily driven by socioeconomic background. To ignore that and focus solely on the fact that it's a 'choice' and that some people manage to get past their disadvantages glosses over the root of the problem - the root of the problem being, what they're being criminalized for shouldn't be a crime in the first place, as well as what got them to make that particular decision to choose that particular path (abuse, racism, mental illness, bullying, poor parenting, lack of money, raised in 'the bad part of town,' fell in with the wrong crowd too young, etc.). Neither of which are black and white issues, or issues that can be summed up with a "well it was their choice, let them rot" type of mentality.

It's (imo) naive to think that pulling welfare will make anything better for anyone. Sure, it'll give people a few extra pennies in their pocket (which will probably end up going to 'The War On Drugs'), but at what expense? People's safety? Their livelihoods? Their lives? Their children's lives? Is it really worth it, making literally everyone else suffer, just for the principle of not having to support someone else's decisions?

Terry

liah wrote: »

And you believe it's really that black and white? You're glossing over the reasons why they have the habits in the first place. Hint: it's not because of the drugs.

That's a cop out.
Boo hoo. My mammy didn't love me, so I have to use <insert drug of choice here>.

If you believe that all drugs should be legal and everyone should have access to them, and many people here do, then go out and campaign for your cause.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of drugs are illegal. No government should be handing money to drug addicts (I hate having to put this in, but alcohol, nicotene and caffeine are legal. Get over yourselves). These people a\re breaking the law. It's as simple as that.

As for a rise in crime, what constitutes welfare payments here (among the highest in the world) is far from enough to keep the average drug addict satisfied.