D.T.W.A.

[Baron Von PWN]

If Rick Scott is personally making money because of the drug testing then there is a conflict of interest.

You weren't aware of this? He signed up HIS company...oh, and then he transferred ownership of it to his wife. So yeah...huge conflict of interest. But that's not important, because poor people suck and should not get government money like rich people should!

total lib move

where the test kits come from and who profits from the test kits still has nothing to do with the principle of drug testing welfare applicants nor how one person feels about poor people.

I have a couple problems with this idea.

1. Welfare should be first and foremost helping people in financial need. Anything else is just adding more shit to an already shitty situation.

Want welfare money but smoke the occasional joint? f*ck you Satan spawn you should have a more socially acceptable vice like alcohol or cigarets! Now go be homeless, because society is much better served that way.

2. Let's assume they do drug test people for welfare. It would then become well known you can't get wellfare if you are doing drugs. What then happens? some people who do drugs stop, the others don't bother to apply and find some other means of surviving (perhaps crime?). You now have a situation where every applicant for welfare is drug free (why apply if you aren't). So what's the point of the test then? other than a very small minority of idiots anyone taking it will be drug free since they know it is comming.

SO the end result would be adding bureaucracy to the welfare system(increasing costs) in order to administer the tests, Adding a cost to already desperate people, enriching the politician who proposed it, helping fewer people, all to catch the minute percentage of people too dumb to realize a drug test will make their application to welfare useless. Well at least you stoped giving money to the like 6% of welfare recipients who are drug users. That's totaly worth increasing the cost and reducing the benefit of welfare .

[Phatscotty]

If Rick Scott is personally making money because of the drug testing then there is a conflict of interest.

You weren't aware of this? He signed up HIS company...oh, and then he transferred ownership of it to his wife. So yeah...huge conflict of interest. But that's not important, because poor people suck and should not get government money like rich people should!

total lib move

where the test kits come from and who profits from the test kits still has nothing to do with the principle of drug testing welfare applicants nor how one person feels about poor people.

I have a couple problems with this idea.

1. Welfare should be first and foremost helping people in financial need. Anything else is just adding more shit to an already shitty situation.

Want welfare money but smoke the occasional joint? f*ck you Satan spawn you should have a more socially acceptable vice like alcohol or cigarets! Now go be homeless, because society is much better served that way.

2. Let's assume they do drug test people for welfare. It would then become well known you can't get wellfare if you are doing drugs. What then happens? some people who do drugs stop, the others don't bother to apply and find some other means of surviving (perhaps crime?). You now have a situation where every applicant for welfare is drug free (why apply if you aren't). So what's the point of the test then? other than a very small minority of idiots anyone taking it will be drug free since they know it is comming.

SO the end result would be adding bureaucracy to the welfare system(increasing costs) in order to administer the tests, Adding a cost to already desperate people, enriching the politician who proposed it, helping fewer people, all to catch the minute percentage of people too dumb to realize a drug test will make their application to welfare useless. Well at least you stoped giving money to the like 6% of welfare recipients who are drug users. That's totaly worth increasing the cost and reducing the benefit of welfare .

and there's the problem. equating smoking a joint once in a while instead of equating a 300 dollar crack binge on the 1st of every month....into satan's spawn. That's just a lib move on top of a lib move.

The voters decide. This is what democracy looks like

[Baron Von PWN]

If Rick Scott is personally making money because of the drug testing then there is a conflict of interest.

You weren't aware of this? He signed up HIS company...oh, and then he transferred ownership of it to his wife. So yeah...huge conflict of interest. But that's not important, because poor people suck and should not get government money like rich people should!

total lib move

where the test kits come from and who profits from the test kits still has nothing to do with the principle of drug testing welfare applicants nor how one person feels about poor people.

I have a couple problems with this idea.

1. Welfare should be first and foremost helping people in financial need. Anything else is just adding more shit to an already shitty situation.

Want welfare money but smoke the occasional joint? f*ck you Satan spawn you should have a more socially acceptable vice like alcohol or cigarets! Now go be homeless, because society is much better served that way.

2. Let's assume they do drug test people for welfare. It would then become well known you can't get wellfare if you are doing drugs. What then happens? some people who do drugs stop, the others don't bother to apply and find some other means of surviving (perhaps crime?). You now have a situation where every applicant for welfare is drug free (why apply if you aren't). So what's the point of the test then? other than a very small minority of idiots anyone taking it will be drug free since they know it is comming.

SO the end result would be adding bureaucracy to the welfare system(increasing costs) in order to administer the tests, Adding a cost to already desperate people, enriching the politician who proposed it, helping fewer people, all to catch the minute percentage of people too dumb to realize a drug test will make their application to welfare useless. Well at least you stoped giving money to the like 6% of welfare recipients who are drug users. That's totaly worth increasing the cost and reducing the benefit of welfare .

and there's the problem. equating smoking a joint once in a while instead of equating a 300 dollar crack binge on the 1st of every month....into satan's spawn. That's just a lib move on top of a lib move.

The voters decide. This is what democracy looks like

Classic Scotty ignore body of post pick on single side issue, finish with nearly unrelated ideological one liner.

Someone smoking a joint is just as excluded as the fellow going on a crack binge. Even if a few welfare recipients goes on a crack binge, is stopping that from happening worth the increased costs and reduced effectiveness? Is stopping the small percentage of abusers worth increasing costs and reducing services?

Besides aren't welfare recipients tracked by social workers to ensure they are trying to find work? If dude is going on crack binges he won't be looking for work and will be quickly off of welfare.

[Woodruff]

If Rick Scott is personally making money because of the drug testing then there is a conflict of interest.

You weren't aware of this? He signed up HIS company...oh, and then he transferred ownership of it to his wife. So yeah...huge conflict of interest. But that's not important, because poor people suck and should not get government money like rich people should!

total lib move

where the test kits come from and who profits from the test kits still has nothing to do with the principle of drug testing welfare applicants nor how one person feels about poor people.

It absolutely DOES matter who profits from a policy when the profiteer is the implementor of said policy. In addition, when the policy is directed solely at the poor, it absolutely does have everything to do with how one feels about poor people, otherwise, the rich who receive government money would also be subject to this policy.

[john9blue]

it really doesn't matter whether he benefits from the policy or not (if you're trying to determine the morality of his actions), but it does make you question his motives, which is the first step in accusing someone of an immoral act.

[Phatscotty]

You weren't aware of this? He signed up HIS company...oh, and then he transferred ownership of it to his wife. So yeah...huge conflict of interest. But that's not important, because poor people suck and should not get government money like rich people should!

total lib move

where the test kits come from and who profits from the test kits still has nothing to do with the principle of drug testing welfare applicants nor how one person feels about poor people.

I have a couple problems with this idea.

1. Welfare should be first and foremost helping people in financial need. Anything else is just adding more shit to an already shitty situation.

Want welfare money but smoke the occasional joint? f*ck you Satan spawn you should have a more socially acceptable vice like alcohol or cigarets! Now go be homeless, because society is much better served that way.

2. Let's assume they do drug test people for welfare. It would then become well known you can't get wellfare if you are doing drugs. What then happens? some people who do drugs stop, the others don't bother to apply and find some other means of surviving (perhaps crime?). You now have a situation where every applicant for welfare is drug free (why apply if you aren't). So what's the point of the test then? other than a very small minority of idiots anyone taking it will be drug free since they know it is comming.

SO the end result would be adding bureaucracy to the welfare system(increasing costs) in order to administer the tests, Adding a cost to already desperate people, enriching the politician who proposed it, helping fewer people, all to catch the minute percentage of people too dumb to realize a drug test will make their application to welfare useless. Well at least you stoped giving money to the like 6% of welfare recipients who are drug users. That's totaly worth increasing the cost and reducing the benefit of welfare .

and there's the problem. equating smoking a joint once in a while instead of equating a 300 dollar crack binge on the 1st of every month....into satan's spawn. That's just a lib move on top of a lib move.

The voters decide. This is what democracy looks like

Classic Scotty ignore body of post pick on single side issue, finish with nearly unrelated ideological one liner.

Someone smoking a joint is just as excluded as the fellow going on a crack binge. Even if a few welfare recipients goes on a crack binge, is stopping that from happening worth the increased costs and reduced effectiveness? Is stopping the small percentage of abusers worth increasing costs and reducing services?

Besides aren't welfare recipients tracked by social workers to ensure they are trying to find work? If dude is going on crack binges he won't be looking for work and will be quickly off of welfare.

oh okay I can address the second part too. Fearing that people dependent on handouts will turn to crime is no justification for the handout.

[Baron Von PWN]

oh okay I can address the second part too. Fearing that people dependent on handouts will turn to crime is no justification for the handout.

2 for 2 for ignoring the main body of an argument! well done. In my whole argument I mentioned the possibility of increased crime only once as an aside. It's like you're trying to be wilfully stupid.

Here is the point again so someone even as thick as you will be able to find it.

What is the point of making everyone on welfare pay for a drug test ? Anyone on drugs just won't try to get welfare. So you've accomplished your objective no state money to drug users. What was the cost? Now the help the state does give costs more. You add an extra level of bureaucracy to the process and bloat the entitlement system in a useless manner, it doesn't even help the poor just makes the politician making the proposal money off of drug tests for clean people.

[GreecePwns]

I might have missed it earlier in this thread, but has Phatscotty answered the question of whether or not to drug test executives of banks receiving bailout money?

[thegreekdog]

I might have missed it earlier in this thread, but has Phatscotty answered the question of whether or not to drug test executives of banks receiving bailout money?

Well played (his answer will be yes, by the way).

[Phatscotty]

I might have missed it earlier in this thread, but has Phatscotty answered the question of whether or not to drug test executives of banks receiving bailout money?

Well played (his answer will be yes, by the way).

U R comparing one person who receives benefits to the top person of a corporation who receives benefits? Also, U R comparing a state program to a federal program, also if you want an answer to the question, first fire their ass, then sure give them a piss test because it's not their fault they lost their job and that's why they need welfare now.

[Phatscotty]

Posted by a Woodrow Wilson and FDR worshipping liberal and smokin hot friend of mine on Facebook

[Juan_Bottom]

OK let me get things straight here for just 1 post

1) The law is basically a failure because only 2% of people test positive, and it leaves the state responsible to pay for all of the kits.
2) Rick Scott's wife owns the company that is selling the kits to Florida?
3) It's ok & legal for government to be prejudiced against the poorest of the poor by assuming that they are drug addicts? <-Has a lawsuit been filed yet?

[Phatscotty]

OK let me get things straight here for just 1 post

1) The law is basically a failure because only 2% of people test positive, and it leaves the state responsible to pay for all of the kits.
2) Rick Scott's wife owns the company that is selling the kits to Florida?
3) It's ok & legal for government to be prejudiced against the poorest of the poor by assuming that they are drug addicts? <-Has a lawsuit been filed yet?

#1 -yes, and that 2% of abusers freed up roughly as much as the program cost. It was overall a break even, with the end result less abuse and more efficiency. There are other unknowns as well, such as how many people did not attempt to apply for welfare because they knew they wouldn't pass a drug test.
#2 if that is the case then that should be investigated and prosecuted.
#3 I dont know where "assumption" comes from. Why would the government assume that? Do you similarly assume that every private sector job that makes you pee in a cup also "assumes you are a drug addict"? I would bet you don't.

What kind of lawsuit are you asking about?

[notyou2]

Mandatory drug tests for all drivers on state and federal roadways. I demand it.

[Juan_Bottom]

#3 I dont know where "assumption" comes from. Why would the government assume that? Do you similarly assume that every private sector job that makes you pee in a cup also "assumes you are a drug addict"? I would bet you don't.

I do find it insulting and I don't understand it. You can be fired over almost anything, so what's with the drug tests to start a job?
I'm poor, so just as Florida thought; all my friends are roaring drug addicts. They only have a problem beating random drug tests. Like, they say pot stays in your system for up to two weeks. But if you simply bloat yourself on water you'll pass the basic urine test.
The assumption comes from the fact that it's only the poor people on welfare getting tested. Why not also include Veterans receiving tuition & benefits, or anyone on disability? Because of that, to me, this smells of prejudice. We need to drug test the blind.

[Juan_Bottom]

Mandatory drug tests for all drivers on state and federal roadways. I demand it.

YES TEST THEM AT RANDOM POLICE CHECKPOINTS.

Click image to enlarge.

[Phatscotty]

Mandatory drug tests for all drivers on state and federal roadways. I demand it.

YES TEST THEM AT RANDOM POLICE CHECKPOINTS.

You mean like what we already have for most commercial drivers and almost all state and federal regulations and all government workers who drive a vehicle already?

It's already in the "mandatory" annual physical and eye and ear test.

and if any of those drivers get into an accident, yes, there is a drug test from the department of transportation, and it's on the spot.

[Juan_Bottom]

U NEED A DRUG TEST TO GET A LICENSE

AND RANDOM POLICE CHECKPOINT/DRUGTEST/SEAT BELT CHECK

[notyou2]

Give mandatory drug tests to all users of municipal, state and federal institutions such as primary school, as well as all persons receiving any kind of government aid for education, sports, and federal tax breaks. Test the rich.

[Juan_Bottom]

notyou gets it.
I just don't see why it's acceptable for Republicans to be prejudiced against the poor. As I say they aren't testing anyone else on the dole. Not our veterans and not the disabled.
Usually I'd take a "meh, let Florida take care of Florida" stance. But it's not right that they are being openly prejudiced against the meek. Don't they have it bad enough already?

[Phatscotty]

notyou gets it.
I just don't see why it's acceptable for Republicans to be prejudiced against the poor. As I say they aren't testing anyone else on the dole. Not our veterans and not the disabled.
Usually I'd take a "meh, let Florida take care of Florida" stance. But it's not right that they are being openly prejudiced against the meek. Don't they have it bad enough already?

Maybe you are just too biased to accept some of the truths involved.

It's against abusers

[Juan_Bottom]

I believe that you argued that drug users are law breakers, so they shouldn't be supported by public funds. I agree with you in every way (though I'm against the war on drugs).
But, certainly some people on disability, or some Veterans receiving tuition or financial support are also druggies. So they shouldn't get any tax dollars either. But this law isn't applied fairly to anyone receiving public funds; it's only aimed at the weakest demographic after immigrants. That's my problem with it.

[notyou2]

It's an infringement on civil liberties. Once again....America, land of the free.

This will open the floodgates to any user of any government money or government services of any kind being tested. Scotty, you claim you are for freedom but you say the exact opposite.

[GBU56]

Let's test those who want to test others for drug and alcohol in their systems.

[Phatscotty]

It's an infringement on civil liberties. Once again....America, land of the free.

This will open the floodgates to any user of any government money or government services of any kind being tested. Scotty, you claim you are for freedom but you say the exact opposite.

that's complete bullshit

the very definition of "dependent" is the exact opposite of "independent".

Laying claim to freedom or liberty in the name of dependency and at the expense of other people's liberty and freedom is thee most perverse fucking thing I have ever heard.