Hooray for Florida ! Only 49 more states to go!!!!!!!
Only 49 more states to go!!!!!!!
Hooray for Florida !
I-95 and I-75 will be jammed for the next month or so with druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida, because this is the first state in the union to require drug testing to receive welfare!
Hooray for Florida ! In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free."
Applicants must pay for the drug test, but are reimbursed if they test drug-free. Applicants who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment. Those who fail a second time will be banned from receiving funds for three years!
Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional.
How is this unconstitutional? It's a legal requirement that every person applying for a job has to pass drug tests in order to get the job, why not those who receive welfare?
Let's get welfare back to the ones who need it, not to those who won't get a job.
I AGREE, DO YOU?
Top Opinion
-
tncdel 2012/06/21 01:42:35
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease and I can virtually guarantee that the govt will steal more than a few druggies.
I'll bet the test costs more than the drugs and now it would be everyone instead of the 2% who test positive.
Who runs the tests? Where are they testing? Who supplies test materials? Who does the bookkeeping? Where are their offices?
If you can make govt more effective start with congress & the military. They waste a hell of a lot more than a few crack heads.
The military alone lost 2.3 trillion that still hasn't been found.
If you really want to trim waste start with the military and congress.
We could save 100 times as much just by ending oil subsidies.
Which do you think will cost more, a few druggies or another bureaucracy?
You're hunting rabbits with a Howitzer
The cure is worse than the disease.
I'd rather let the pittance of few druggies slide than let govt steal it 10 fold and it's still an invasion of privacy
But I have two issues, 1. I am strongly against the war on drugs, but I don't think it has anything to do with it. And 2. It's a gross exaggeration and stereotype to classify welfare recipients as drug addicts, I'm in no way defending welfare recipients, I just prefer not to box people into corners, and push them into ideological prisons. I
I believe on folks having access to medical pot ...crack / any other nO !
Why?
First, it does nothing to deter people, if they want drugs they find access.
Second, it's costly, for something that we spend billions on, it has produced little results. Only corrupting cops, getting gang leaders more power, and putting people who committed a consensual act.
Third there other more dangerous ties to it's illegality, if a person wants to commit an illegal act to make a profit, they're willing to do something worse to protect that profit. Alcohol is a legal, regulated as hell which I support, but you don't see kids shooting each other because they were cutting into their alcohol sales business.
Fourth it would actually be safer and more controlled if it were legal, because professionals will be selling it that would no when to say no. If there were somebody were to do something illegal to try and get drugs, like theft, i'm all for arresting them.
So to sum
A- Cheaper
B- Take power from the gang leaders (who rarely end up in prison, because they have the resources to stay out)
C- Safer (alcohol is legal and there's nobody dying over purchasing it)
D- More controlled.
Legalize drugs, regulate them in much the same manner as we do tobacco and alcohol, and you will find the streets a much safer place to walk.
I also believe that the war on drugs is a no win scenario and as such pointless, but if an individual can afford the drugs, should you, I or anyone else be buying their damn food for them? I think not.