All times are UTC-05:00


Phinfever Home Page

Phinfever Chatroom

Phinfever FAQ




Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:35 pm
Posts: 4372
Location: Charleston AFB, SC
The most amazing law in years:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/31/us-florida-welfare-drugs-idUSTRE74U6W320110531

Quote:
Florida will begin testing welfare recipients for illicit drug use under a new law signed by Governor Rick Scott on Tuesday.

The measure makes Florida the only state to test all recipients of the federal program known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, according a Washington-based public policy group that says other states have chosen less obtrusive ways to monitor drug use.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 24879
Location: Miami, FL
How else do you monitor whether people are using drugs other than testing them for it?

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:25 am 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:55 pm
Posts: 5439
A law that makes sense? I don't buy it.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 24879
Location: Miami, FL
Iowafin wrote:
A law that makes sense? I don't buy it.


A law that makes sense and may be ruled unconstitutional by the courts if the ACLU has their way.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:02 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:11 pm
Posts: 9472
Location: Fargo, ND
Im torn on this. I fear what sort of precedence this sets. So in order for children to get help from the state, their parents have to be clean? I don't know man....
Scenario: Dad smokes some weed on the weekends and because he fails a test, the kids go without food? You can punish adults all you like, but it's the kids that will pay the most.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 24879
Location: Miami, FL
Phin wrote:
Im torn on this. I fear what sort of precedence this sets. So in order for children to get help from the state, their parents have to be clean? I don't know man....
Scenario: Dad smokes some weed on the weekends and because he fails a test, the kids go without food? You can punish adults all you like, but it's the kids that will pay the most.


Quote:
In two-parent households, both adults would be tested. Benefits to children could be awarded to a third-party recipient, who must also pass a drug screen.

The law will not affect the federal food stamp program.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:08 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:11 pm
Posts: 9472
Location: Fargo, ND
Rich wrote:
Phin wrote:
Im torn on this. I fear what sort of precedence this sets. So in order for children to get help from the state, their parents have to be clean? I don't know man....
Scenario: Dad smokes some weed on the weekends and because he fails a test, the kids go without food? You can punish adults all you like, but it's the kids that will pay the most.


Quote:
In two-parent households, both adults would be tested. Benefits to children could be awarded to a third-party recipient, who must also pass a drug screen.

The law will not affect the federal food stamp program.

Thanks Rich, that makes a lot more sense now.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:55 pm
Posts: 5439
Rich wrote:
Phin wrote:
Im torn on this. I fear what sort of precedence this sets. So in order for children to get help from the state, their parents have to be clean? I don't know man....
Scenario: Dad smokes some weed on the weekends and because he fails a test, the kids go without food? You can punish adults all you like, but it's the kids that will pay the most.


Quote:
In two-parent households, both adults would be tested. Benefits to children could be awarded to a third-party recipient, who must also pass a drug screen.

The law will not affect the federal food stamp program.


I think the food stamp program needs to be altered as well. I worked at a convenience store in high school, and we sold pop and candy bars and all sorts of unneeded high priced crap to people that have food stamps.

Just make it a law that you can't use food stamps at convenience stores. Some, if not most, of these people are on food stamps because they have problems managing their money....so the program should help teach how to do that.

I also think if you can't get by so bad that you need food stamps, that you shouldn't be able to afford alcohol or tobacco, either...but that'd be difficult to monitor, and difficult to revoke food stamps for a kid because his dad is an alcoholic.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:35 pm
Posts: 4372
Location: Charleston AFB, SC
If dad has money for weed, he doesn't need welfare. That's the purpose of the law.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 24879
Location: Miami, FL
The government should make food stamp stores where you can purchase from a fine selection of government cheese, skim milk, rice and cheap toilet paper using food stamps and make them unviable for use anywhere else.

You'll see how quickly people will try harder to get off food stamps.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:34 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:11 pm
Posts: 9472
Location: Fargo, ND
Rich wrote:
The government should make food stamp stores where you can purchase from a fine selection of government cheese, skim milk, rice and cheap toilet paper using food stamps and make them unviable for use anywhere else.

You'll see how quickly people will try harder to get off food stamps.

Setting up all those stores in communities across the country and finding employees to run and manage it all would be FAR FAR more wasteful.
As for Iowa, I hardily agree with you, candy and pop should be precluded from the food program. I also think they should make healthy options more mandatory, though I'm not sure how much overhead would be involved in fairly implementing that. Perhaps unhealthy foods would cost more and healthy choices might cost less.............. but I imagine it would be a pain to figure all that out.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 24879
Location: Miami, FL
Phin wrote:
Setting up all those stores in communities across the country and finding employees to run and manage it all would be FAR FAR more wasteful.


It was a joke...

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:35 pm
Posts: 4372
Location: Charleston AFB, SC
Make it more like WIC. With that, you are given vouchers for certain products like X amount of formula, X bottles of juice, etc. And you have to do an interview to get the vouchers every time.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:11 am 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
Rich wrote:
Iowafin wrote:
A law that makes sense? I don't buy it.


A law that makes sense and may be ruled unconstitutional by the courts if the ACLU has their way.


The ACLU is calling this illegal search and seizure.
Personally, I call it a reasonable part of the application process.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 24879
Location: Miami, FL
degs wrote:
The ACLU is calling this illegal search and seizure.
Personally, I call it a reasonable part of the application process.


Yup. That being said, what's in it for Scott? Isn't there a conflict of interest due to his wife being part of the board of a company that makes these drug tests?

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:35 pm
Posts: 4372
Location: Charleston AFB, SC
Then the ACLU needs to fight that battle for everyone submitted to a drug test. Not just welfare. Hell, I get money from the government, why do I have to get tested?


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:07 am 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
Ski_Money wrote:
Then the ACLU needs to fight that battle for everyone submitted to a drug test. Not just welfare. Hell, I get money from the government, why do I have to get tested?


I'm don't know your situation and I am not commenting on that.

I see a big difference in someone who paid into, for example, Social Security or Unemployment, receiving benefits versus someone going to the government for a handout. There are already conditions for receiving government charity (and that is what the program is).

This is just another (in my mind) reasonable condition: pass a drug test.

We have a "war on drugs". Why should we support the drug cartels through our public welfare programs?


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:10 am 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
Rich wrote:
degs wrote:
The ACLU is calling this illegal search and seizure.
Personally, I call it a reasonable part of the application process.


Yup. That being said, what's in it for Scott? Isn't there a conflict of interest due to his wife being part of the board of a company that makes these drug tests?


If her company has some kind of exclusive contract, then yes. If it is one of several, then probably not. To me, that part is a minor issue, especially considering how blatantly the Bush administration flaunted the conflict of interest rules.

Besides, I'd rather have our government money going to a drug company than to a drug cartel.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:19 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:11 pm
Posts: 9472
Location: Fargo, ND
degs wrote:

Besides, I'd rather have our government money going to a drug company than to a drug cartel.

There's a difference?


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:31 am 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
Phin wrote:
degs wrote:

Besides, I'd rather have our government money going to a drug company than to a drug cartel.

There's a difference?


Drug companies pay a little bit in taxes and don't have their goon squads causing bloodshed on the streets (not as often at least)


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 3:18 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Rookie
Phinfever Rookie

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 3:08 pm
Posts: 17
Ya that's a tough one, i think i'd want an exclusion for pot definitely. I'm always afraid of government invading privacy as a precedent, starts with welfare and moves on drug tests everywhere, but i think in this case that's a pretty silly slippery slope argument. But ya Iowa I work in a convenient store too and accepting food stamps there is absolutely ludicrous people buy three dollar pop-cycles on food stamps. And there are soooo many meth users and pill addicts and what not with food stamps. So in that case I could see that being a helpful preclusion for welfair. Is there any sort of rejoining after being tested, drug counseling or something? Something geared towards getting people off drugs in the bill? Would that even work shoot just more money... I don't know. What does everyone think about Ron Paul wanting to dismantle ss, and welfair, and whatnot? (Hopefully I got that right I believe I heard him say that) I don't see him being able to get that through congress but its interesting to think what would happen or whether it could be fixed or at least cut back. Not a shot at Paul I've just been pondering the idea of gov't programs.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 

All times are UTC-05:00


Phinfever Home Page

Phinfever Chatroom

Phinfever FAQ


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited | Chopped and modified by Coots | Original design by Prosk8r