Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

Kate wrote: 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.

Given the fallacy of your allegory, I decided to expose the flaws it contained. Sarcastic or not, what you were attempting to do was equate every public expenditure with the public charity expenditure. You attempted that earlier with tax refunds, Social Security and finally roads. That your arguments are so filled with flaws is not my fault Kate, you get sole credit for that.

It is only intrusion into your life if you are seeking the public's charity. It is really no more of an intrusion into your life than asking you to prove yourself financially qualified for the charity, or medically disabled to the extent that you qualify for the charity. If I need the charitable assistance of others, the person or group providing the money gets to set the conditions upon which it will be made available to me. No one is entitled to the charity of others. It makes no difference is the charity is private or public, you do not have a right to receive it free of any and all conditions. In this instance it is the tax paying citizens of Florida who provide the charitable funds and they, by their elected representatives, have set the condition that you may not be a current user of illicit drugs to receive their charity. That is not an intrusion of government into your life. It is a condition that must be met before the charity is extended to you just as the financial requirements are.

Yet again, you miss my point that this is an intrusion into personal lives. The examples I've given, whether apples to oranges or not, would be fair game in the world of politics. Once you allow drug testing for one "charity" program, where will it end? Do we require drug testing of children and their parents for reduced cost (or free) lunches at school? It's the same basic principle and, if not kept in check, will be applied by politicians for every government expenditure regardless of whether you see it as charity or a right.

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.

I'm glad we agree that every public "charity" program should involve drug testing as a requirement to receive benefits.

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.

And those of you bitching about welfare that took the child welfare to educate their kids (cause you recognize that you bred the kid AND THEN ADMITTED could not afford to raise it or just felt you deserved my income)...I will take a thank you or note saying how much extra you paid in this year because you were no longer desperate and in need of welfare (like when you took it).

Perhaps if you ever took the child welfare for education, we should continue to drug and alcie test you for the rest of your life and if you ever fail, you simply have to pay back the full amount spend on your behalf, with interest and penalties of course...don't forget we need to do the same with your MMJ card carrying kid, every 30 days for their rest of their life. Cause if you raised a drug taking kid, you failed as a parent and thus we should not have to pay your way either.

Do people really want to play this game. Average kid $10k a year in welfare, taken any this year anyone, smoke a J in the same year anyone, beer in the same year anyone, vaca in the same year anyone....SHAME.

I agree with others we should not start this sh**, just like we should not have let many other things start, like the welfare systems in place to begin with. CO takes a lead in big govt. and violation of rights...often championed by the people, only we like to deny it. Kind of like Park County claiming to be Republican, but somehow always does things the Democrats would do.

I'm glad we agree that every public "charity" program should involve drug testing as a requirement to receive benefits.

Whew! I'm glad we agree now- yes I think every "government charity program" should involve drug testing because I think there would be a whole lot fewer people eligible to snatch our money. I think many of them will miraculously find a job or otherwise choose to avoid our welfare state.

Is it really too much to ask that these looters have a clear head and be dope free before we give them our money and or taxpayer funded help?

I'm suprised at how feverishly some of the posters here are defending dopeheads.

Are you all on dope?

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 every parent, and every family that sends their kids to public schools...since that's a form of "public welfare" too...

BearMtnHIB wrote:

I'm glad we agree that every public "charity" program should involve drug testing as a requirement to receive benefits.

Whew! I'm glad we agree now- yes I think every "government charity program" should involve drug testing because I think there would be a whole lot fewer people eligible to snatch our money. I think many of them will miraculously find a job or otherwise choose to avoid our welfare state.

Is it really too much to ask that these looters have a clear head and be dope free before we give them our money and or taxpayer funded help?

I'm suprised at how feverishly some of the posters here are defending dopeheads.

Are you all on dope?

Sarcasm. I like to use it. Perhaps I should stop since this is the second time today I've had to point out that I'm being sarcastic.




< Note: what is written below is not sarcasm >

How many people do you think are both dopeheads and on the public dole? If and when you answer, could you provide some sources for your answer?

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.