Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

LadyJazzer wrote: The tests cost the same, whether they come back negative or positive... "Follow the money".... Who stands to gain from an enormous amount of money being pumped into the system by a state-mandated program? Who owns the primary chain of labs?

As long as it demonizes Vikings deadbeat tenants sounds like a good use of tax $ .

archer wrote: That isn't what I meant, and I think you know that. I don't care to give my tax dollars to people to take drugs either......I don't, however, want to spend my tax dollars on a program that would cost more than will be saved by catching the druggies. Cost effective?......would you spend $2 million to catch the druggies when that will only save you $1 million?

Source please. Are you saying this program will cost twice as much as it will save or is this just another liberal scare tactic to prevent the enforcement of the law?

Yeah... I keep forgetting... It's all about Viking...er, "conservative rights"...

jmc wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: The tests cost the same, whether they come back negative or positive... "Follow the money".... Who stands to gain from an enormous amount of money being pumped into the system by a state-mandated program? Who owns the primary chain of labs?

As long as it demonizes Vikings deadbeat tenants sounds like a good use of tax $ .

Again....incoherant ramblings used as deflections to avoid the real subject do not make your case at all. You know who you are starting to sound like?

The Viking wrote:

jmc wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: The tests cost the same, whether they come back negative or positive... "Follow the money".... Who stands to gain from an enormous amount of money being pumped into the system by a state-mandated program? Who owns the primary chain of labs?

As long as it demonizes Vikings deadbeat tenants sounds like a good use of tax $ .

Again....incoherant ramblings used as deflections to avoid the real subject do not make your case at all. You know who you are starting to sound like?

Ut Oh! All in fun V. I am not Bailey Boy

archer wrote: That isn't what I meant, and I think you know that. I don't care to give my tax dollars to people to take drugs either......I don't, however, want to spend my tax dollars on a program that would cost more than will be saved by catching the druggies. Cost effective?......would you spend $2 million to catch the druggies when that will only save you $1 million?

Hey, some conservatives were willing to spend tax dollars on a bridge to nowhere.....i was not.....does that speak volumes to the differences in the two parties and our philosophies?

Would the kids of the druggies be better off doing that? If it's for the kids, does that change the equation any on whether the money is well or poorly spent?

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah... I keep forgetting... It's all about Viking...er, "conservative rights"...

I love how you guys like to make this personal to avoid the subject. Interesting to see how obsessed a few of you get with sertain people. None of you can see the big picture. Your tunnel vision and that of Obama is why we are in a bigger mess today than ever in history.

Great.....now I gave them another bunny rabbit to chase and get off subject. Let's see who chases it first.

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: That isn't what I meant, and I think you know that. I don't care to give my tax dollars to people to take drugs either......I don't, however, want to spend my tax dollars on a program that would cost more than will be saved by catching the druggies. Cost effective?......would you spend $2 million to catch the druggies when that will only save you $1 million?

Hey, some conservatives were willing to spend tax dollars on a bridge to nowhere.....i was not.....does that speak volumes to the differences in the two parties and our philosophies?

Would the kids of the druggies be better off doing that? If it's for the kids, does that change the equation any on whether the money is well or poorly spent?

Yes, to me it sounds like many of the Libs on here would prefer to supply drugs to a home with kids in it thinking they would be better off. Just stick your head in the sand and avoid reality is their motto. I have seen it first hand and I will not ignore it and do not want the government to give money to supply drugs to homes where kids are abused. It just creates the next generation of drug users. (Libs you can put your head back in the sand now, I am sure it will help the kids who are growing up in drug houses with abuse)

The Viking wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: That isn't what I meant, and I think you know that. I don't care to give my tax dollars to people to take drugs either......I don't, however, want to spend my tax dollars on a program that would cost more than will be saved by catching the druggies. Cost effective?......would you spend $2 million to catch the druggies when that will only save you $1 million?

Hey, some conservatives were willing to spend tax dollars on a bridge to nowhere.....i was not.....does that speak volumes to the differences in the two parties and our philosophies?

Would the kids of the druggies be better off doing that? If it's for the kids, does that change the equation any on whether the money is well or poorly spent?

Yes, to me it sounds like many of the Libs on here would prefer to supply drugs to a home with kids in it thinking they would be better off. Just stick your head in the sand and avoid reality is their motto. I have seen it first hand and I will not ignore it and do not want the government to give money to supply drugs to homes where kids are raised. It just creates the next generation of drug users. (Libs you can put your head back in the sand now, I am sure it will help the kids who are growing up in drug houses with abuse)

I think we are just trying to point out the "small government" hypocrisy of conservatives that love he intrusion if it serves their needs. Not really personal.

"Rick Scott Sued By ACLU Over Mandatory Drug Testing For Florida State Workers"

Good... Maybe the ACLU can bring some sanity to this silliness, and the invasion of privacy that this entails. The State does NOT HAVE a right subject EVERY state worker to a drug test.