| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Swampfox10mm
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
This is fair.
Once bestowed, welfare becomes a property right that can only be taken away by some sort of evidentiary hearing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal 2.0
Joined: 10 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As long as rehab is offered for free, I think it's fair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's a situation that should never have arisen. They should never have banned drugs to begin with, and neither should we permit people to become idle scroungers.
There could be nothing more pernicious than state paternalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Some people will take the risk and be kicked off of welfare to the detriment of the children. Drug rehab is definately a necessity, along with second chances. Overall a very good idea. In education I think Texas and some other states have had good success improving education by tying ample money given for education with demands for results from the money, the same should be done for any money given out by the government to anybody for anything. Otherwise I think the money goes down the drain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
This is fair.
Once bestowed, welfare becomes a property right that can only be taken away by some sort of evidentiary hearing. |
"Federal law allows states to screen for drug use under the TANF program, which provides a maximum $300 a month cash assistance to needy families. The program, which replaced traditional welfare in the mid 1990s, has a 48-month lifetime cap on benefits." From the link posted by the OP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110531/us_nm/us_florida_welfare_drugs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am totally against this new law. First, I have a problem with its violation of civil liberties. Its no ones business what anyone, even those who receive state aid, do with their own bodies.
This law wrongly assumes that if a person on aid has taken illegal drugs that person has done so with monies received from the state. Its an assumption that is not based on fact. Are there any studies or such information that even shows that people on state aid are using the funds to purchase illicit funds? If a person from state aid is given a marijuana cigerate at a party or whatever, what business is it of the state to test someone to find out if they have? This bill includes all state workers as well. If you are doing your job its no business of the government to force you to reveal if you're doing illicit drugs in your spare time.
The measure says that those who want aid must pay for their drug tests and be reimubursed if they are clean. Hmm...I lost my job and am financially strapped and now I have to come up with money to pay for my own drug test? Money I presumably don't have which is why I am asking for aid in the first place. Also, this adds to the cost of an already financially strapped Florida. Is the cost justified? Its possibly presumed that the amount of people who are on aid who are tested positive will have a net plus result. Any proof it would be?
Its hypocritical as welll. That same governor was against the illegal use of prescription meds like Oxycotin, Vicadin, etc. until recently. Its well known that those drugs have been abused by the middle and upper classes. Floridian Rush Limbaugh being one of the most famous abusers. Michael Jackson another and its an abuse that his doctor is being taken to court over.
The govervor has changed his mind about investigating this only when the hypocracy has been pointed out.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/category/buzz-tags/prescription-drug-monitoring-database
Gov. Rick Scott's decision to drop his opposition to a prescription drug monitoring database drew plaudits Thursday from Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, who had personally urged Scott to change his mind.
The hypocracy becomes even more evident when its now revealed that the governor owned a company that does drug screening and transferred ownership to his wife prior to authorizing this act.
http://www.examiner.com/hernando-county-political-buzz-in-tampa-bay/gov-rick-scott-forces-drug-testing-for-public-aid-hernando-co-florida
Among the companies that may do Scott�s drug testing is Solantic. Scott co-founded the urgent care chain, then in January, transferred his ownership share to his wife.
�Given Solantic's role in that marketplace, critics are again asking whether Scott's policy initiatives - this time, requiring drug testing of state employees and welfare recipients - are designed to benefit Scott's bottom line
In theory, if its okay for the state to test welfare recipients, then it would be okay to test ANYONE receiving monies from the state. Why not test EVERY student who receives state monies to pay for college? I would assume the bill also includes their professors if it doesn't already but if not, they are susceptible as well. Why shouldn't the state test the recipients of anyone receiving a state loan or grant for their company or small business? Why not test all retirees on state pension?
Finally, here is a great MSNBC piece on the hypocracy of Republicans touting 'small government' that includes Rick Scott's bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH9eBnpmEhA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
I am totally against this new law. First, I have a problem with its violation of civil liberties. Its no ones business what anyone, even those who receive state aid, do with their own bodies.
|
What does receiving welfare have to do with civil liberties? Those applying for this welfare are on notice that they will be tested. They still have the choice to apply or refrain from doing so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
The measure says that those who want aid must pay for their drug tests and be reimubursed if they are clean. Hmm...I lost my job and am financially strapped and now I have to come up with money to pay for my own drug test? Money I presumably don't have which is why I am asking for aid in the first place. Also, this adds to the cost of an already financially strapped Florida. Is the cost justified? Its possibly presumed that the amount of people who are on aid who are tested positive will have a net plus result. Any proof it would be? |
This is the part that crossed my mind as well. The combination of the risk of legitimate beneficiaries being blocked by this additional requirement due to being unable to front the money for their own testing (a real possibility for the genuinely poor) and the fact that having to compensate all welfare recipients for regular testing will very possibly be a net financial burden on the state combine to make me feel like this isn't a great idea.
Then again I think the war on drugs in all its manifestations isn't an especially good idea, so perhaps I'm just biased. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
I am totally against this new law. First, I have a problem with its violation of civil liberties. Its no ones business what anyone, even those who receive state aid, do with their own bodies.
|
What does receiving welfare have to do with civil liberties? Those applying for this welfare are on notice that they will be tested. They still have the choice to apply or refrain from doing so. |
It has everything to do with civll liberties. Everyone has a right to privacy. Its a cornerstone of our of our country to have our civil liberties violated WITHOUT cause. The state being allowed to invade someone's civil liberties are pre-condition to receive state help is extortion of someone's civil liberties. The original intent of aid is to help those who need temprorary financial assistant. What business is it of the state is to ask someone to give up their civil liberties while in a state of desparation with no proof or evidence prior that they are even breaking the law?
So, let me ask you this. Would it be okay for the state to ask for someone to take a drug test before receiving financial help after a natural disaster like a hurricane or tornado?
Would it be okay for the state to ask for a drug test before someone can receive state grant money for college?
Would it be okay for the state to ask someone for a drug test prior to receiving some form of state medicare-esque program?
This is a slippery slope and I would suggest wrong for the state who with our own tax dollars that we give to help ourselves in times of need or whatever, to extort us of our own civil liberties.
Politicians like to demonize those that seek aid. Of course oftentimes its abused. As I've indicated in another thread companies receive more financial aid than individual citizens do for aid (on the federal level). However, in order to receive votes we demonize the group that uses less and excuse aid to companies in the name of job creation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
I am totally against this new law. First, I have a problem with its violation of civil liberties. Its no ones business what anyone, even those who receive state aid, do with their own bodies.
|
What does receiving welfare have to do with civil liberties? Those applying for this welfare are on notice that they will be tested. They still have the choice to apply or refrain from doing so. |
It has everything to do with civll liberties. Everyone has a right to privacy. Its a cornerstone of our of our country to have our civil liberties violated WITHOUT cause. The state being allowed to invade someone's civil liberties are pre-condition to receive state help is extortion of someone's civil liberties. The original intent of aid is to help those who need temprorary financial assistant. What business is it of the state is to ask someone to give up their civil liberties while in a state of desparation with no proof or evidence prior that they are even breaking the law? |
The state has every right to condition hand-outs on individual compliance with existing law. Now, even if we were to see drugs legalized, I still think you could make a case for these tests.
Nobody has a right to receive welfare payments (they do have a right to a hearing before having such payments terminated). The right to privacy extends to the home, personal effects, one's person. It does not extend to pay-outs by States or Uncle Sam.
| Quote: |
So, let me ask you this. Would it be okay for the state to ask for someone to take a drug test before receiving financial help after a natural disaster like a hurricane or tornado?
|
What does that have to do with this? Of course that is impracticable.
| Quote: |
| Would it be okay for the state to ask for a drug test before someone can receive state grant money for college? |
I don't think that is necessary.
| Quote: |
| Would it be okay for the state to ask someone for a drug test prior to receiving some form of state medicare-esque program? |
Why don't you stick to debating this issue, hmmm?
| Quote: |
| This is a slippery slope and I would suggest wrong for the state who with our own tax dollars that we give to help ourselves in times of need or whatever, to extort us of our own civil liberties. |
Slippery slope arguments are the most classic of logical fallacies. There are no slippery slopes in public policy: the law can go as far as it wishes to go and stop there.
| Quote: |
| Politicians like to demonize those that seek aid. Of course oftentimes its abused. As I've indicated in another thread companies receive more financial aid than individual citizens do for aid (on the federal level). However, in order to receive votes we demonize the group that uses less and excuse aid to companies in the name of job creation. |
As I said, welfare is a kind of property which the government cannot deprive without first going through an evidentiary hearing (Due Process Clause). It is permissible for gov't agencies to first screen applicants to assure compliance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
And what happens to those who test positive and have children? Will the state take their children away or leave them to starve/turn to a life of crime?
This to me sounds like an ill-conceived law which will create more problems than it solves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
kuros. What compliance does drug testing prove? As for my examples it IS the same issue. Drug testing is a civil liberties issue. The other examples are civil liberties issues. Answer the question kuros instead of stating sticking to the issue. Its related.
The right to privacy is the issue. Furthermore when Michigan tried the same thing back in '99 it was ruled unconstitutional so you're wrong in that its not a civil liberties issue.
The point kuros, that you fail to see, is that if the state can violoate one of your civil liberties it sets a precedence to violate them all. You may see this as a side issue but if the state requred to see the emails or downloads of welfare recipients to see if they violated child pornography acts it amounts to the same issue.
My scenario of asking whether it should be okay for the state to drug test a student prior to receiving state aid for college is the SAME issue. State aid for college is no more a right than welfare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Would it be okay for the state to ask for a drug test before someone can receive state grant money for college? |
I don't think that is necessary.
|
It can be reasonably argued that college students could use state aid to buy pot just as much as a welfare recipient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This is a slippery slope and I would suggest wrong for the state who with our own tax dollars that we give to help ourselves in times of need or whatever, to extort us of our own civil liberties. |
Slippery slope arguments are the most classic of logical fallacies. There are no slippery slopes in public policy: the law can go as far as it wishes to go and stop there.
|
Laws that violate our rights that are allowed to exist are often used as a precedence to expand those laws. That is the slippery slope.
Even laws meant to cover only a specific issue are expanded based on precedence.
RICO statutes were set up specifically to combat organized crime of the Italian mafia families but were extended to Wall Street firms to fight insider trading and such in the '1980s...slippery slope. It may be something that people wanted but its still within the slippery slope paradigm I alluded to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
