Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

Soulshiner wrote: You'd probably lose half the Jeff Co Sheriffs and DPD in the first test.

I don't think so. When the military went z tolerance, we lost a small % of senior people who valued their high over their career.

Don't know about jr. people but what ever the % it was good riddance.

I want drug testing done to every public employee. Every politician, every judge, every district attorney, every cop, all of them. The US Marshalls should walk into the Congress and grab the politicians at random and drag them out into the hall and force them to take a piss test right then and there. All testing should be done by an external source with all results published by the external source straight to the internet, like they do with guys that are busted for prostitution. Every 60 days. If these individuals are being paid by the taxpayer, I don't believe that any of them should have a job, benefits, or compensation of any kind without a clean drug test every 90 days. If we are playing the "I don't want druggies to get my pilfered tax money" game, then all of them should be tested. You'd probably lose half the Jeff Co Sheriffs and DPD in the first test.

And... Fire their asses upon any positive result- no second chance. That's what my employer would do.
I would totally agree with all of the above!

posteryoyo wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Free and reduced lunches are public charity, are they not? What right do you have to food you have neither grown yourself nor purchased yourself? Absolutely none. The taxpayers have decided to provide this charity and they have a right to set conditions that must be met in order to collect it. Again, it is no different than establishing an income level at which one is eligible for the program.

PS...the School they are going to is a public charity too. So I would say any parent on drugs or that even drinks (cause we all know that sh** is way worse than the illegal sh**) should be denied the almost $10k (per child) in welfare they get under threat of having their neighbor's home taken away.

Not exactly yoyo - the purpose of the publicly funded education is the betterment of society overall. Current adult welfare recipients average a 6th grade reading ability. A person who is unable to read, write or figure is going to have a more difficult time providing for themselves, which means they will be more more likely to require the charity of others for much, if not all, of their lives. It is self interest that motivates us to publicly fund education, not charity.

So, when it's "publicly funded education" it's not a form of "welfare"?

What other "publicly funded" endeavors escape the "welfare" list...according to you? I'm just trying to figure how you arbitrarily decide what things you are FOR that are OK to publicly-fund, and which ones are not... It seems that if you "say it is", then it is; and if you "say it's not", then it's not... So, how far does the hypocrisy go?

Interesting...

If you're going to play the "publicly funded" = "Welfare" card, the least you could do is be consistent.....................................Nah....

jmc wrote: I hate to pull the "fascist" word but that fits the drug testers mentality we have been witnessing.Total government control over our personal lives. We all benefit from some of the forums of gov. Just a matter of priorities. Some want the gov. to punish, some want too help.Simple.

How is requiring one to pass a drug test a punishment jmc? And why is it a bigger punishment than requiring that they document their income before being allowed to receive our charity? Do you really think that access to public charity should be without any reasonable restrictions whatsoever? And if not, then how are those restrictions not also punishments instead of help?

PrintSmith wrote:

jmc wrote: I hate to pull the "fascist" word but that fits the drug testers mentality we have been witnessing.Total government control over our personal lives. We all benefit from some of the forums of gov. Just a matter of priorities. Some want the gov. to punish, some want too help.Simple.

How is requiring one to pass a drug test a punishment jmc? And why is it a bigger punishment than requiring that they document their income before being allowed to receive our charity? Do you really think that access to public charity should be without any reasonable restrictions whatsoever? And if not, then how are those restrictions not also punishments instead of help?

If the "powers of the government ( state or fed.)" want to test my blood because I use the system, I find that offensive ,and PS , I am really surprised you think this is in any way acceptable.What would your revered founders think?

LadyJazzer wrote: So, when it's "publicly funded education" it's not a form of "welfare"?

What other "publicly funded" endeavors escape the "welfare" list...according to you? I'm just trying to figure how you arbitrarily decide what things you are FOR that are OK to publicly-fund, and which ones are not... It seems that if you "say it is", then it is; and if you "say it's not", then it's not... So, how far does the hypocrisy go?

Interesting...

If you're going to play the "publicly funded" = "Welfare" card, the least you could do is be consistent.....................................Nah....

It is consistent LJ, you just refuse to see it. That which is provided to all regardless of income is not charity. That which is provided only to those with little or no income is. Regardless of whether I make 240K a year or 24K a year, my access to the roads is the same, as is the access to the publicly funded schools. That goes for libraries, parks, snow removal, police and fire protection and a host of other programs payed for out of the taxes levied and collected by the government. When you start supplementing the individual welfare of the person based solely on their income level at taxpayer expense, then we are talking public charity. There is indeed a difference that you, for whatever reason, refuse to see. Perhaps you are just being a PIA today, I know you are intelligent enough to comprehend the difference between public education overall and free/reduced lunches for only a certain segment of the population in the publicly financed schools.

jmc wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

jmc wrote: I hate to pull the "fascist" word but that fits the drug testers mentality we have been witnessing.Total government control over our personal lives. We all benefit from some of the forums of gov. Just a matter of priorities. Some want the gov. to punish, some want too help.Simple.

How is requiring one to pass a drug test a punishment jmc? And why is it a bigger punishment than requiring that they document their income before being allowed to receive our charity? Do you really think that access to public charity should be without any reasonable restrictions whatsoever? And if not, then how are those restrictions not also punishments instead of help?

If the "powers of the government ( state or fed.)" want to test my blood because I use the system, I find that offensive ,and PS , I am really surprised you think this is in any way acceptable.What would your revered founders think?

I think Benjamin Franklin would find it entirely consistent with his philosophy, as would Thomas Jefferson, as would Madison, Monroe, Washington and perhaps even Adams.

And we are not talking about using the system here jmc. What we are talking about is individually seeking out publicly funded charity to support your family that you are unable to support through your own efforts. If you have temporarily fallen on hard times and are unable to feed your family, is it unreasonable for those of us who are providing the money to feed them to expect that your expenditures on recreational illicit drug use be forsaken until you are able to once again feed them with the fruits of your own labor? If you think it is then fine, don't seek out our charity. You have no right to the fruits of the labor of others, only to those of yourself.

This thread gets more and more amusing!

PrintSmith wrote:

jmc wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

jmc wrote: I hate to pull the "fascist" word but that fits the drug testers mentality we have been witnessing.Total government control over our personal lives. We all benefit from some of the forums of gov. Just a matter of priorities. Some want the gov. to punish, some want too help.Simple.

How is requiring one to pass a drug test a punishment jmc? And why is it a bigger punishment than requiring that they document their income before being allowed to receive our charity? Do you really think that access to public charity should be without any reasonable restrictions whatsoever? And if not, then how are those restrictions not also punishments instead of help?

If the "powers of the government ( state or fed.)" want to test my blood because I use the system, I find that offensive ,and PS , I am really surprised you think this is in any way acceptable.What would your revered founders think?

I think Benjamin Franklin would find it entirely consistent with his philosophy, as would Thomas Jefferson, as would Madison, Monroe, Washington and perhaps even Adams.

And we are not talking about using the system here jmc. What we are talking about is individually seeking out publicly funded charity to support your family that you are unable to support through your own efforts. If you have temporarily fallen on hard times and are unable to feed your family, is it unreasonable for those of us who are providing the money to feed them to expect that your expenditures on recreational illicit drug use be forsaken until you are able to once again feed them with the fruits of your own labor? If you think it is then fine, don't seek out our charity. You have no right to the fruits of the labor of others, only to those of yourself.

Who and what does not receive "publicly funded charity" That's your problem, Everyone , biz and individuals get some help. You want to punish the weakest and think it is helpful and fine to support the powerful. Basic different outlook on the world view. Bitch , for once, how the powerful interests get the rest of us to support them and I may give your view some credibility.