Drug test for welfare recipients.

[Jim Schue]

Why should it be any different than if a non welfare recipient fails a test and loses a good job and it's held over their heads on future job openings.. The welfare thing should not matter any more than the non welfare worker...

 

For one thing, it can't be. That information is not allowed to be shared. If you, I or anyone else flagged a test and got turned down for or fired from a job, and that would-be/former employer shared it with other would-be employers, they would be facing a very hefty lawsuit.

[acemona]

The difference is I pay taxes and the recipient does not... Lots of high paying jobs have been lost due to a failed drug test.. Who 'takes care" of these folks?? Again it's about personal responsibility.. If a guy needs a check bad enough he will refrain..

 

You mean they don't pay income taxes, they pay plenty of other taxes.

[cammando]

With income tax payers money...

[jericho]

I dont mind the weed they may smoke, as long as it isn't with the kid or in front of the kid. It is the pills they snort up their nose and shoot up in their arms that really bothers me. I feel the pain pills are the biggest problem in Ky. Maybe if a family lost their kids and had to pick to straighten up or lose their kids they may comply.

 

Pot is the least of concerns IMO.

 

But yeah some kind of test to determine what they get does need to be done in a way not to hurt the kids. Plenty of abuse of welfare in my neck of the woods.

[RomanEmpire]

I despise drug use in any fashion. Will never understand it. Ultimate selfish act imo.

[formerkywrestler]

I despise drug use in any fashion. Will never understand it. Ultimate selfish act imo.

Do you drink?

[RomanEmpire]

Do you drink?

 

I do drink beer on occasion. Nothing else. I hope you are not comparing beer to herion, oxy, cocaine, etc...............

[sportsfan41]

Last I checked, Kentucky's version of this law was still stuck in committee.

 

Florida Governor Rick Scott posted this on his Facebook page today ...

 

"Today, I signed HB 353, keeping my campaign promise to require drug screening for welfare recipients. While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction. This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars. Click 'Like' if you stand in support.

 

By: Rick Scott"

 

I didn't vote for the guy, but I have to admit, if somebody voted for him and doesn't like what he has done, they weren't paying attention to him during the campaign. He has preformed almost exactly as he said he would.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-31/florida-s-scott-signs-bill-forcing-welfare-drug-tests.html

 

Do you agree with what he signed?

[sportsfan41]

Welfare recipients who actually care about their families will comply... It's all about personal responsibility.. Something that is greatly missing in today's society.

 

Agreed, it's not that difficult to not use illegal drugs, I've managed to do so, I don't see why others can't do the same; especially if I'm supporting them and or their family.

[sportsfan41]

I hate the "unintended" consequences that this could result in...hungry children, homeless families, etc. But on the other hand, I know all too well that some recipients sell their benefits for half their worth to feed their drug habits. I actually support this legislation, but hope that the state of Florida realizes that while it may serve it's purpose well, they need to be prepared for the fall out.

 

I agree, it's sad that kids, families may have to suffer, but at the same time, they already are if they're living with someone that is going to choose drugs over their family.

[sportsfan41]

So you're willing to spend tax dollars on the kids?

 

Isn't that what the money is SUPPOSED to be going to in the first place?

[sportsfan41]

It will cost a lot of money to enforce and govern any drug testing program. So much money that there is know way IMO to justify the spending of tax dollars on the "users."

 

So if you test positive, I am sure there will be in place some type of appeals process to dispute it...more money spent.

 

If you lose the appeal you then go to court to challenge the result...more money spent.

 

Then appeal it again...more money spent.

 

Will the results be a matter of public record? I mean we spent tax dollars to test them...how long are they public, if they are?

 

The ACLU will take the state to court for violation of civil rights if the records are public because of privacy issues.

 

Since they are part of public records will future potential employers have access to these files when looking to fill positions?

 

Just imagine you try "weed" once or are an occasional partaker?

 

If you test positive and it is on your record that employers can access good look getting a some what good job to provide for yourself and your family.

 

It will cost way to much money to enforce with minimal chance of success.

 

 

 

I mean why stop there because they get government money? Why not test everyone because we all use taxpayer money?

 

I think you are on to something and I'm all for it. People complain all of the time about taxes, healthcare costs who pays what etc. I'm all for over taxing the drug users. If they can afford the drugs surely they can afford the fines/fees/taxes. If not I bet they'd change their ways, if not then that's their own fault. I have little sympathy for people being punished in various avenues for breaking laws that are long standing.

[sportsfan41]

In an overall general sense....to address the employer issue:

 

I had to be drug tested at every job I've ever been hired to do since 1991. Where I work now, I have been drug tested twice...once when I was hired 10 years ago, and again when the a new company bought my place of employment and I had to be hired by them. For employment purposes, I don't think that there's much of an argument.

 

RM you actually brought to light a good point. What if companies that required drug testing made them available to the government. It's a win, win situation. The government wouldn't be paying for the testing and in turn they could offer a small tax break. If it's a company policy to begin with then it helps them, if not perhaps it would entice other companies to do the same.

[sportsfan41]

I dont mind the weed they may smoke, as long as it isn't with the kid or in front of the kid. It is the pills they snort up their nose and shoot up in their arms that really bothers me. I feel the pain pills are the biggest problem in Ky. Maybe if a family lost their kids and had to pick to straighten up or lose their kids they may comply.

 

Pot is the least of concerns IMO.

 

But yeah some kind of test to determine what they get does need to be done in a way not to hurt the kids. Plenty of abuse of welfare in my neck of the woods.

 

I've done alot of research on the subject, a few lengthy papers in college, and while I agree to an extent I just can't say you get a pass because it was "just pot", because it IS STILL ILLLEGAL, it's a choice and it's a bad one, especially if your family depends on you to make responsible ones.

[sportsfan41]

Do you drink?

 

Classic, it impairs you sure, so do many antidepressents, pain meds etc. But there is a CLEAR and distinct difference, one is legal and the other is not. I don't make up the rules, but I do my best to abide by them, and I expect others to do the same; especially if I'm footing their bill. Why should I be punished because I chose to be a morally sound law abiding citizen when someone else didn't?