Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

Kate wrote: I also work for my money and am tired of dopeheads that travel on highways that are paid for with my tax dollars. I demand that everyone that rides on those roads be tested for drugs. After all, there are those that don't pay any income tax that use those roads and they shouldn't be able to use the taxpayer funded amenity if they have the funds to buy their dope.

So what you need to do Kate is contact your state representative and state senator and have them draft the legislation, or find one who is willing to do so. They can introduce it into the legislative process. If enough legislators feel as you do, they will pass the legislation and ask the governor to sign it into law. If the governor agrees, he will sign it. If not, he will veto it and the legislature will have a chance to override his veto with another vote. If they succeed, it becomes a law, if not it doesn't. If it fails through the representative legislative process, you can obtain signatures on a petition and place the matter directly before your fellow citizens in this state and ask them to do what the legislature would not or could not. If a majority of your fellow citizens agree with you, they will approve your initiative and enact a law. If they disagree this year, you can start again and place it before them again in the next election, and the next, and the next until you either convince enough of them that you are right, you fail to find enough signatures to place it on the ballot, or you become convinced that it is no longer worth your effort because your fellow citizens simply don't see it the same way you do.

That is what they did in Florida - which is an independent and sovereign state, just as Colorado and the other 48 states in this union of states are. A bill was introduced into the Florida legislature, debated, approved and signed by the governor of that state into law. People do not have to work for the state of Florida if they don't wish to, they don't have to apply for charity from the state of Florida if they don't wish to, heck, they don't even have to live in the state of Florida if they don't wish to. The government of Florida, as Florida is an independent and sovereign state, has the right and the authority to legislate regarding domestic affairs which affect the citizens of that state.

There is nothing contained in the compact it voluntarily joined, the Constitution, which transferred to the federated government sole authority over the domestic affairs of its citizens. If they wish to require their employees and those that receive their tax funded charitable activities to pass a drug screening prior to being employed or receiving their charity, they have the authority to require it. If you wish to maintain your privacy over whether or not you partake of illicit drugs, don't ask for public charity or seek employment with the state of Florida. You are not entitled to the charity of others, association is voluntary in this union. Florida has the ability to set the qualifications that you must meet to qualify to receive the public's charity. What those qualifications are, whether they are financial, physical, mental or a combination of all of the above, is up to them and them alone. The federal government has no business in it, the other states that belong to the union have no business in it. It is Florida's business, and only theirs.

This is the way our system of governance works. All 50 states that belong to the union have a republican form of governance - the compact they signed to join the union requires that this be the manner in which each independent and sovereign state that joins the union be governed. No one has an unfettered right to the charity of others Kate, at least not here. Regardless of whether that charity is funded by private or public funds, no one has an unrestricted claim upon it. The absence of drug use is now one of the restrictions to charity in the state of Florida. Neither does anyone have an unfettered right to work for the state of Florida. One of their restrictions to being employed at the public expense is the absence of illicit drug use. You don't have to work for the state of Florida, you don't have to apply for its charity. If you choose to do either you are subject to the restrictions that are placed upon the charity and employment. It really is just that simple.

PrintSmith, I thought you, of all people, would recognize sarcasm when you would see it.

Kate wrote: PrintSmith, I thought you, of all people, would recognize sarcasm when you would see it.

No, he's too busy lecturing on "federated government" and "sovereign states"... But keep trying...

Don't forget "despotism and tyranny" and "elitism".....ad nauseum...

Oh, I did recognize the sarcasm - as well as your opposition to the principle of the laws of Florida. The first part of my response was intended to be as sarcastic as the post of yours I quoted. The last 3 paragraphs were intended to rebut your emotional opposition using logic and reason. Privacy exits in private. You have no expectations of privacy when you step out onto a public street and you have no expectation of privacy when you apply for public charity or public employment either. When you are standing in line at a deli open to the public chatting on your cell phone you have no expectation that your conversation is private since you are conducting the conversation in a public place. You do not have a privacy right when requesting public funds. The public has the authority, and the right, to place restrictions upon the access to those funds. If they didn't, then Bill Gates could apply for and receive the same welfare that an unemployed person applies for and receives. You don't have a right to the charity of others. Welfare is public charity.

Your argument about the roads is specious. When I purchase the vehicle I pay taxes on that purchase. When I purchase tires I pay taxes on that purchase. When I purchase fuel for my vehicle, again I am taxed upon that purchase. When I renew my license plates I pay a yearly "fee" tax for the privilege of operating the vehicle on the public roads. All of these taxes are put to use to maintain the public roads upon which I drive my vehicle. While driving I am in violation of the law if I am doing so under the influence of drugs - even legal prescription drugs - to the extent that it impairs "to the slightest degree" my ability to operate the vehicle I am driving. If my actions behind the wheel draw the attention of an officer of the law, I can be stopped at any point along my journey. Those are restrictions I am subject to as a condition of using the public roads. Public charity also contains conditions and restrictions. What, precisely, those restrictions are is determined by the independent and sovereign state dispensing the public charity to the people who reside within that independent and sovereign state. If you are unwilling to abide by the conditions and restrictions, don't ask for the public charity. If you are unwilling to abide by the conditions and restrictions of driving on the public roads, don't drive on the public roads. You don't need a driver's license to drive a vehicle on your private property. You don't need to provide insurance on the vehicle. You don't need to license the vehicle with the state. You may use fuel which is untaxed in it if it is only driven on your private property. It is not subject to safety inspections or emission inspections. It doesn't have to have a functional airbag or even a working diagnostic computer. You can put a 1950 engine into a 1990 vehicle if you want to. It doesn't have to have doors, seatbelts, a windshield, bumpers that remain undamaged in impacts below 3 mph or any bumpers at all. The tires can stick out beyond the fenders, there is no limitations upon the height of the lights or their brightness. In short, none of the restrictions that apply to a vehicle driven on the roads provided at public expense are applicable to a vehicle which is never driven on them. A person who never seeks public charity is similarly free of the restrictions placed upon those that do.

The state conducts random screens regularly with it's roadside DUI checks. No-one whined when they started doing this, and it's quite clear to me anyway that those checks violate our rights when it comes to search and seizure standards.

Now states are pushing for drug testing at those DUI checkpoints. Colorado is one of the states that wants to be able to test for drugs, and since the camel's nose is already under the tent concerning ethanol- I assume they will get away with the drug tests just like they get away with stopping us without cause or suspision for alcohol testing.

This is what happens when you allow government intrusion. Once a precedence is set- the doors are wide open to the next step, and the next and the next. The only way to prevent the creep is to prevent that first step from ever happening.

While all the liberals are whining about testing dopehead welfare looters, we are about to allow a central government to take over our healthcare system.

Testing of ALL Americans for any substance the government objects to is already in the works, and I suspect that this little detail will become appearant to everyone once the new laws kick in. The government will tell us how fat we can be, what substance we can consume, what we can eat, smoke and drink. The precedence is set, the camel has his nose in the tent and it's just about all over folks!

If you don't think so just look at how other countries use their socialized medical system to tell people how to live, Japan is a good example. The Japanese were all called in for a physical 2 years ago, and those who were overweight were given 3 months to lose the weight or face stiff fines.

Soon the FEDS will be telling us all what to eat, what drugs we can't take, and how much excersize we must perform, yes we will all be puppets on a string real soon- soon indeed!

BearMtnHIB wrote: Soon the FEDS will be telling us all what to eat, what drugs we can't take, and how much excersize we must perform, yes we will all be puppets on a string real soon- soon indeed!

What ya mean, soon, they do that now.

Leave it to PrintSmith to take a specific iota of an argument and blow it out of proportion. Whoever taught you that an argument was dressing up an erroneous assumption in an infinitely complex sentence did you a great disservice.

As I have said previously, this is a government intrusion into our lives, regardless of how well meaning the intention of the action. Allowing drug testing here will only lead to more intrusions later.

WHAT?
I can't keep my job if I get caught with any drugs in my system that the DR. hasn't approved.
IMO, some take welfare as they're job, so what's the difference?

I'm not sure if government folks have testing or not hope so.
Or maybe that's why DMV is so frick'in slow, get off the pot and on the speed.

This case of the Coors dude that got fired, will be a start. Hope it goes to the Supreme Court... They need to decide is pot legal or not. Probation Doesn't WORK!
And once again we DO NOT LEARN a thing from history, and it wasn't that long ago.

BTW, get rid of the frick'in TSA, and start profiling, talk about intrusions...
The First Lady needs to STFU? I'll eat what I want, when I want, smokers should be able to smoke whenever they want, screw this fearmoggering 2nd hand bullsh*t, Do this or the world will overheat and we'll all die, but the worst offenders, of any Clear Air Act are except, (WTF?) on & on & on... intrusion after intrusion, we have become sheep, and folks better wake-up.

WHAT?
I can't keep my job if I get caught with any drugs in my system that the DR. hasn't approved.
IMO, some take welfare as they're job, so what's the difference?

I'm not sure if government folks have testing or not hope so.
Or maybe that's why DMV is so frick'in slow, get off the pot and on the speed.

This case of the Coors dude that got fired, will be a start. Hope it goes to the Supreme Court... They need to decide is pot legal or not. Probation Doesn't WORK!
And once again we DO NOT LEARN a thing from history, and it wasn't that long ago.

BTW, get rid of the frick'in TSA, and start profiling, talk about intrusions...
The First Lady needs to STFU? I'll eat what I want, when I want, smokers should be able to smoke whenever they want, screw this fearmoggering 2nd hand bullsh*t, Do this or the world will overheat and we'll all die, but the worst offenders, of any Clear Air Act are except, (WTF?) on & on & on... intrusion after intrusion, we have become sheep, and folks better wake-up.

Yep. Agree. It's already here.

Thank You, for not being a sheep, and a wake, BearMtnHIB.