|
| Thread: No Welfare for Drug Users |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted June 02, 2011 03:03 AM |
|
|
No Welfare for Drug Users
Florida is now requiring drug testing for everyone on welfare, something I have suggested before. Of course many of the dems in Florida oppose the law since it would result in fewer dem voters. As people got cleaned up and moved on to productive lives they would no longer be dependent on welfare, thus no longer slaves of the dem party.
Clicky
Quote:
Comment of the day: “Sorry, there is no constitutional right to free money. If you don't like it, you don't have to apply.”– LeaC24
Clean up for welfare
Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening. Scott said the measure saves tax dollars and provides "incentive to not use drugs,” but some Democratic lawmakers say the tests represent an "illegal invasion of personal privacy."
The story about the measure generated a lot of back and forth between CNN.com readers, though most readers said they support the legislation.
____________
Revelation
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 03:22 AM |
|
|
Well, I don't see any rational reason why something like this law shouldn't exis-...
Wait a minute.
Is this some kind of a clever ploy to make me agree with you more and more until you convert me into a Texan and I start sleeping with an automatic rifle under my pillow?
Be that as it may, as far as I can see, the only thing to discuss here is this:
Let's say you turn out to be an addict on the test; is there something like state sponsored rehab? So you can choose to go clean, and after a finished therapy, you undertake tests more often for a while; as long as you're not back on drugs, you get the paycheck.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 07:31 PM |
|
|
|
are the drug addicts supposed to pay for the desintox? in that case, I guess they'll just stay drug addicts, and steal to pay their doses?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 09:25 PM |
|
|
Wait... what?
Is this just another random junk article that is just another example of the US political system being extremely broken, and that the people are being spoonfeed information by silly biased idiots.
____________
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 12:34 AM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 11:12, 03 Jun 2011.
|
Nobody in their right mind wants people to abuse the system. So I mostly agree with this.
The only problem is that only that person can change themselves. If they're just cut off willy-nilly, they have a higher chance of resorting to violent crime or prostitution.
Personally I think while they should be cut off, they should also be given one chance after being thrown in Detox and given a little education (and have to check in regularly) first. Then only be cut off if they put no effort into improving themselves.
Reminds me of the movie Half Baked.
Quote:
Bob Saget: Marijuana is not a drug. I used to suck d*** for coke.
Rehab patient: I seen him [do it]!
Bob Saget: Now that's an addiction, man. You ever suck some d*** for marijuana?
So yes, I agree with the overall idea of the law, but it must be tempered so that we can redeem those we can also.
Edit: Also to make it fair, test all people who work for companies that recieve government money. CEOs included.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 09:25 AM |
|
|
It's unconstitutional, since it's a violation of equal treatment.
Of course you CAN make such a law, but then EVERYONE who gets money from the taxpayer - and that means everyone working for the government in any way, soldiers, politicians, social workers, even those who work independent from the government, but get paid by them - would have to be tested for drugs.
In short, the law would constitute a discrimination.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 09:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Florida is now requiring drug testing for everyone on welfare, something I have suggested before.
And here I thought a good christian was supposed to help those in need who can't take care of themselves, but admittedly, I never really bothered to study christian mythology in details.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 12:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's unconstitutional, since it's a violation of equal treatment.
Of course you CAN make such a law, but then EVERYONE who gets money from the taxpayer - and that means everyone working for the government in any way, soldiers, politicians, social workers, even those who work independent from the government, but get paid by them - would have to be tested for drugs.
In short, the law would constitute a discrimination.
No, it is not unconstitutional or discriminatory. By the way, the military and law enforcement already has random drug tests. I would fully support random drug tests of Congress, the White House, and judges. Druggies need to be kicked out of office instead of up there making policies while stoned.
Beggars can't be choosers. If you have your hand out the government has a right to dictate the terms on which you will receive tax payer money. There is no constitutional right to free money.
Quote:
And here I thought a good christian was supposed to help those in need who can't take care of themselves, but admittedly, I never really bothered to study christian mythology in details.
Actually, Jesus taught charity, not welfare. Atheist mythology says to step on the "weak," right? Survival of the "fittest" and all that. After all, without God morality is only a matter of personal opinion.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 01:10 PM |
|
|
Survival of the fittest is more like Anarchism than Atheism really. Atheism isn't mythology, it is simply the absence of religion. Non-Christian governments still hand out welfare-money, it has nothing to do with Christian beliefs but simply helping those who have no money. Drug addicts still need money, despite them messing up their own lives. But I guess that's a fair Christian way to look upon things, if they have made bad choices they deserve to starve to death.
____________
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 01:19 PM |
|
|
Survival of the Fittest is actually a small part of the theory of evolution. The fittest creatures in nature survive and pass on their traits while the weakest die out and do not.
That's nothing to do with Athiesm. Evolution is afterall, universal and not secular or non-secular. Darwin, unlike the church of the time would have you believe, was actually a fairly devout Christian. His theory was only based on his observations that he noted down in each area he visited. Also, other Christians before him came up with evolution before him, but Darwin gets all of the credit because he was the one attacked by the Church. It's the Streisand effect.
Survival of the Fittest dictates the animal kingdom, not a human society. At least, not one beneficial to people.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 01:47 PM |
|
|
Wrong conception, Elodin. Welfare receivers are no beggars. First Beggarization, then criminalization...
The fact that the government supplies the poorest with a little monetary help doesn't reduce the receivers to subhumans. They can't be subjected to unconstitutional treatment.
It would be unconstitutional and a violation of equality to suggest that receivers of welfare would be more prone to drug abuse than anyone else. In fact, considering their low "income" the opposite is more likely.
There are procedures for all these things, and unless there is concrete evidence for drug abuse, getting welfare is no reason to be subjected t a drug test.
Since drugs are not the only possible violation of laws, the next thing in line will be mandatory house search for stolen or other illegal goods with welfare recepient, right? Followed by mandatory DNA samples to be transferred to the police and FBI computers and day/night observation.
In short, it IS a discrimination, whether you see that or not, and the courts won't allow it, whether you like it or not.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 01:58 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 13:59, 03 Jun 2011.
|
Quote:
Survival of the Fittest dictates the animal kingdom, not a human society.
If only it was true... Not that I support the armchair blabbering against the social state - not at all - but homo homini lupus est and will remain like that until the economic-social system is based more on confrontation than on cooperation.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 02:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In short, it IS a discrimination, whether you see that or not, and the courts won't allow it, whether you like it or not.
No. It isn't discrimination. State governments have the power to attach conditions to welfare recipients. There are already plenty of conditions attached to SSI, RSDI, SDA, Foodstamps, Medicaid, FIP, and other benefits. Requiring that people be drug-free before taking the benefits is not unreasonable.
The problem, however, starts when denying benefits to people with medical marijuana cards.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 03:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wrong conception, Elodin. Welfare receivers are no beggars.
Sure they are. They are people who want a hand out.
Quote:
The fact that the government supplies the poorest with a little monetary help doesn't reduce the receivers to subhumans. They can't be subjected to unconstitutional treatment.
I've never claimed anyone is subhuman. I claim both genders and all races are equal, as I stated many times, and as the Bible teaches.
Quote:
It would be unconstitutional and a violation of equality to suggest that receivers of welfare would be more prone to drug abuse than anyone else.
Dude, lots of people have to take random drug tests. All military members and all law enforcement. Lots of private sector jobs do random drug tests too. I've had to take random drug tests both in my time working in law enforcement and when holding down a private sector job. Requiring welfare recipients to have to take drug tests is not discriminating against them.
There is nothing unconstitutional about requiring drug tests of people before they receive a hand out from the federal government.
Quote:
In short, it IS a discrimination, whether you see that or not, and the courts won't allow it, whether you like it or not.
Sorry dude, but whether you like it or not it is not discrimination and whether you like it or not the courts are going to allow it. 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 03:35 PM |
|
|
It's not a question of whether there ARE conditions, but WHAT KIND of condition.
It's rather obvious, or example, that the reception of welfare cannot be taken as an excuse to violate the basic human rights of a person. Welfare or not, the basic human rights cannot be touched. So the reception of welfare cannot be used as an excuse to violate these rights.
As far as I know you need concrete suspicion based on evidence to check whether a person may have done something illegal. It is NOT allowed, for example, to search the flat of any person without evidence and suspicion. It is not alliowed to take DNA samples without evidence and suspicion.
Making a drug test falls under the same category than a DNA sample.
There is no reason WHATSOEVER to stop at a drug test, once you are allowed to do that.
You cannot extort the population to undergo illegal procedures just because they get some money.
Note that the decisive point here is that it is ILLEGAL to check for criminal activities without suspicion or evidence. If it was legal, you could do it, of course.
But it's not.
Otherwise you could, with the same rational, demand a drug test of everyone visiting a hospital. Or a governmental institution. From anyone who was reporting a crime at a police station.
Getting welfare is a bloody social service - you want to undergo a drug test anytime you need to apply for a social service? Or people searching your flat for contraband or illegally copied DvDs or games?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 03:36 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 15:39, 03 Jun 2011.
|
Quote:
Survival of the fittest is more like Anarchism than Atheism really. Atheism isn't mythology, it is simply the absence of religion. Non-Christian governments still hand out welfare-money, it has nothing to do with Christian beliefs but simply helping those who have no money. Drug addicts still need money, despite them messing up their own lives. But I guess that's a fair Christian way to look upon things, if they have made bad choices they deserve to starve to death.
When a government hands out money it is welfare, not charity.
Declaring something to be moral or immoral is inconsistent with an atheist world view. In a world without God morality is only a matter of personal opinion. The baby rapist in such a world view is no more (or less) moral than a philanthropist or a person who sacrifices himself to save a plane load of other people.
Certainly atheism has its own mythos. Before it was debunked the atheist mythos was that the universe is eternal. Now the atheist mythos is that the universe magically created itself out of a steady state of absolute nothing without a cause, inanimate objects magically began to live, and other nonsense. And of course saying there is no guiding hand in evolution is indeed saying "survival of the fittest."
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 04:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now the atheist mythos is that the universe magically created itself out of a steady state of absolute nothing without a cause, inanimate objects magically began to live, and other nonsense.
ah? I always thought it was the religions claiming that 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 04:59 PM |
|
|
JJ:
No one is forcing these people to take welfare, so when they sign up for it, they agree to whatever conditions it may have. You can't have your rights violated if you agree to everything that's being done. If getting punched in the face was a condition for receiving welfare, and they agreed to it, it wouldn't be a violation of their rights to have someone in the government punch them in the face.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 05:36 PM |
|
|
Then it's no welfare anymore, but a salary. And for employees are the same rules in effect: workers have certain rights as well.
People are PAYING TAXES, so that they can enjoy welfare when they happen to need it.
Once you start limiting and violating people's rights, just because they are poor, once you make laws for people and different laws for poor people, things will rapidly deteriorate.
Poverty is no crime and poor shouldn't be treated like criminals.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 05:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
People are PAYING TAXES, so that they can enjoy welfare when they happen to need it.
Just because people pay taxes does not mean they have a right to state assistance.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
| |
|
|
