florida drug test for welfare recipiants

[Banned]

it's not just drug addicted PEOPLE that are welfare. who's to balme for this..the prof writing the SCRIPT or the recipient looking for relief from L.I.F.E.'s little aches?

"i have a bad back"..so? Does this mean you deserve a script for pain relief?

PAIN is part and parcel of L.I.F.E> enjoy it. your alive. no pain means your D.E.A.D.

the point IS quit pressuring your docs to indemnify YOu against every little ache'n'pain with a prescription.

i've had my aches and paind..but i have yet to seek solstice from a prescript drug ..

put that in your pipe and smoke it , hypocrites

[KeithReynolds]

For the record, I was just busting Autumnsky's balls. I wasnt seriously saying he made racist comments, just making a joke about the word choices.

[f.sciarrillo]

Will you accept the consequences of increased crime ? And will you assume the cost of the increased crime. No Money = go steal / take / etc. some money. I would think that in big cities gang violence will increase as a result as well.

I don't think that crime will be any different than it is now. And if it is, they can just go to jail.

So you are saying that you are against drug testing welfare recipients?

[Hawk]

Decriminalizing drugs would free hundreds of thousands from prison, saving taxpayers huge incarceration costs. Billions and over the years saving trillions when you all all those freed citizens now being a contributor to society and the economy.

Well, there you go again.

If you make any addictive drug legal, you will create a segment of the population who will not be able to support themselves.

Every kid I know / knew can get alcohol by having a 21 year old friend get ti for them. Do you think this wouldn't happen with legal heroine, cocaine etc. ? Please note, my concern is for addictive drugs.

Here is some history for you Joe, from the peroid you want to go back to.

From: Scientific American July 1991, 20-27


"Americans had recognized, however, the potential danger of continually using opium long before the availability of morphine and the hypodermic's popularity. The American Dispensatory of 1818 noted that the habitual use of opium could lead to "tremors, paralysis, stupidity and general emaciation." Balancing this danger, the text proclaimed the extraordinary value of opium fn a multitude of ailments ranging from cholera to asthma. (Considering the treatments then in vogue-blistering, vomiting and bleeding-we can understand why opium was as cherished by patients as by their physicians.)

Opium's rise and fall can be tracked through U.S. Import-consumption statistics compiled while importation of the drug and its derivative, morphine, was unrestricted and carried moderate tariffs. The per capita consumption of crude opium rose gradually during the 1800s, reaching a peak in the last decade of the century. It then declined, but after 1913 the data no longer reflect trends in drug use, because that year new federal laws severely restricted legal imports. In contrast, per capita consumption of smoking opium rose until a 1909 act outlawed its importation.

During the 1800s, increasing numbers of people fell under the influence of opiates-substances that demand ed regular consumption or the penalty of withdrawal, a painful but rarely life-threatening experience. Whatever the cause-over prescribing by physicians, over-the-counter medicines, self indulgence or "weak will"-opium addiction brought shame. As consumption increased, so did the frequency of addiction.

The story of cocaine use in America is somewhat shorter than that of opium, but it follows a similar plot. In 1884 purified cocaine became commercially available in the U.S. At first the wholesale cost was very high-S5 to $10 a gram-but it soon fell to 25 cents a gram and remained there until the price inflation of World War I. Problems with cocaine were evident almost from the beginning, but popular opinion and the voices of leading medical experts depicted cocaine as a remarkable, harmless stimulant.

Cocaine spread rapidly throughout the nation. In September 1886 a physician in Puyallup, Washington Territory, reported an adverse reaction to cocaine during an operation. Eventually reports of overdoses and idiosyncratic reactions shifted to accounts of the social and behavioral effects of long-term cocaine use. The ease with which experimenters became regular users and the Increasing instances of cocaine being linked with violence and paranoia gradually took hold in popular and medical thought.

In 1910 William Howard Taft, then president of the U.S., sent to Congress a report that cocaine posed the most serious drug problem America had ever faced. Four years later President Wood row Wilson signed into law the Harrison Act, which, in addition to its opiate provisions, permitted the sale of cocaine only through prescriptions. It also forbade any trace of cocaine in patent remedies, the most severe restriction on any habit-forming drug to that date. (Opiates, including heroin, could still be present in small amounts in nonprescription remedies, such as cough medicines.) "

[Hawk]

Will you accept the consequences of increased crime ? And will you assume the cost of the increased crime. No Money = go steal / take / etc. some money. I would think that in big cities gang violence will increase as a result as well.

I don't think that crime will be any different than it is now. And if it is, they can just go to jail.

So you are saying that you are against drug testing welfare recipients?

I have no opinion either way EDIT (no opinion as of now). I'm just suggesting the consequences. I think crime will increase if they need money and they don't have a job. We'll find out in Florida. I'm glad the testing ground is far away from me.

[shredder138]

Drug tests = bad idea. I'm not a fan of the Welfare system at all, but I don't think the whole War on Drugs thing is any better. Violating people's privacy sets a pretty bad precedent that can be abused in even worse ways later. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Perfect.

[slackin@dabass]

Drug tests = bad idea. I'm not a fan of the Welfare system at all, but I don't think the whole War on Drugs thing is any better. Violating people's privacy sets a pretty bad precedent that can be abused in even worse ways later. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I do see what your saying about the legal precident. Once we test cash recipiants we can test food stamp recipiajts, then disabilty recipiants, the social security, medicare and caid and so on and so on, but hey, its still the governments (our) money. Now if they mandate every taxpayer to submit ro drug testing, then you got invasion of privacy. I like this florida law. The people that have to take the test pay for their test. If they fail theyre off the program for a year and have to take drug rehab. Pot smokers probably wont be affected considering a bottle of piss cleaner is what, 40 bucks? Its the junkies and meth heads that cause the problem. That stuff completly decapasitates ( spelling?) you. I can smoke a big ol doober at night and still work tomorrow AND still hhave all my teeth in a year. So to summarize, this isnt invasion of privacy in anyway... although the aclu is suing florida under that claim.

[Banned]

Decriminalizing drugs would free hundreds of thousands from prison, saving taxpayers huge incarceration costs. Billions and over the years saving trillions when you all all those freed citizens now being a contributor to society and the economy.

Well, there you go again.

If you make any addictive drug legal, you will create a segment of the population who will not be able to support themselves.

Prove It!
Every kid I know / knew can get alcohol by having a 21 year old friend get ti for them. Do you think this wouldn't happen with legal heroine, cocaine etc. ?

Do you think 21 year olds are not able to get heroine now if they want it? They will get it, legal or not.

Please note, my concern is for addictive drugs.

Here is some history for you Joe, from the peroid you want to go back to.

From: Scientific American July 1991, 20-27


"Americans had recognized, however, the potential danger of continually using opium long before the availability of morphine and the hypodermic's popularity. The American Dispensatory of 1818 noted that the habitual use of opium could lead to "tremors, paralysis, stupidity and general emaciation." Balancing this danger, the text proclaimed the extraordinary value of opium fn a multitude of ailments ranging from cholera to asthma. (Considering the treatments then in vogue-blistering, vomiting and bleeding-we can understand why opium was as cherished by patients as by their physicians.)

Opium's rise and fall can be tracked through U.S. Import-consumption statistics compiled while importation of the drug and its derivative, morphine, was unrestricted and carried moderate tariffs. The per capita consumption of crude opium rose gradually during the 1800s, reaching a peak in the last decade of the century. It then declined, but after 1913 the data no longer reflect trends in drug use, because that year new federal laws severely restricted legal imports. In contrast, per capita consumption of smoking opium rose until a 1909 act outlawed its importation.

During the 1800s, increasing numbers of people fell under the influence of opiates-substances that demand ed regular consumption or the penalty of withdrawal, a painful but rarely life-threatening experience. Whatever the cause-over prescribing by physicians, over-the-counter medicines, self indulgence or "weak will"-opium addiction brought shame. As consumption increased, so did the frequency of addiction.

The story of cocaine use in America is somewhat shorter than that of opium, but it follows a similar plot. In 1884 purified cocaine became commercially available in the U.S. At first the wholesale cost was very high-S5 to $10 a gram-but it soon fell to 25 cents a gram and remained there until the price inflation of World War I. Problems with cocaine were evident almost from the beginning, but popular opinion and the voices of leading medical experts depicted cocaine as a remarkable, harmless stimulant.

Cocaine spread rapidly throughout the nation. In September 1886 a physician in Puyallup, Washington Territory, reported an adverse reaction to cocaine during an operation. Eventually reports of overdoses and idiosyncratic reactions shifted to accounts of the social and behavioral effects of long-term cocaine use. The ease with which experimenters became regular users and the Increasing instances of cocaine being linked with violence and paranoia gradually took hold in popular and medical thought.

In 1910 William Howard Taft, then president of the U.S., sent to Congress a report that cocaine posed the most serious drug problem America had ever faced. Four years later President Wood row Wilson signed into law the Harrison Act, which, in addition to its opiate provisions, permitted the sale of cocaine only through prescriptions. It also forbade any trace of cocaine in patent remedies, the most severe restriction on any habit-forming drug to that date. (Opiates, including heroin, could still be present in small amounts in nonprescription remedies, such as cough medicines.) "

And? Alcohol consumption did not go down during Prohibition, but organized crime flourished.

[Gallowglass]

There is no two wrongs here. It is the fact that there are people living off the tax payers money who do nothing but sit around shooting up, smoke dope, or snort lines. Welfare is the most abused system and something has to be to done to get the slackers, and abusers, off of it.

So, if they are going to treat it like a career, then they should be drug tested. There is no unconstitutionality about it. There is no invasion of privacy. Do you call needing a drug to get a job invasion of privacy? If you call needing a drug test to get welfare such, then you have to agree that it is to get a job.

Actually, I do see two wrongs...1st is the welfare state itself. It has done nothing but create a government sanctioned slave state. The so called "War on Poverty", instituted in the early 60's has begat us nothing but greater poverty. Personally, I'd abolish the welfare state and let private charities handle the situation. IMO, they've done a better job.

The 2nd, is,
yes, the invasion of privacy that comes with mandatory drug testing. Keep in mind, this is not coming from a private institution (which I have no problem with), this is coming from the government...is that really how a government should treat it's citizens? I'd also decriminalize drugs. The "War on Drugs" has created nothing more than increased drug usage, more potent drugs, militarized our police, and criminalized an entire segment of our population.

You know, politicians are nothing more than people who are living off the tax payers money...should we require a drug test of them too?

[Hawk]

Decriminalizing drugs would free hundreds of thousands from prison, saving taxpayers huge incarceration costs. Billions and over the years saving trillions when you all all those freed citizens now being a contributor to society and the economy.

Well, there you go again.

If you make any addictive drug legal, you will create a segment of the population who will not be able to support themselves.

Prove It!
Every kid I know / knew can get alcohol by having a 21 year old friend get ti for them. Do you think this wouldn't happen with legal heroine, cocaine etc. ?

Do you think 21 year olds are not able to get heroine now if they want it? They will get it, legal or not.

Please note, my concern is for addictive drugs.

Here is some history for you Joe, from the peroid you want to go back to.

From: Scientific American July 1991, 20-27


"Americans had recognized, however, the potential danger of continually using opium long before the availability of morphine and the hypodermic's popularity. The American Dispensatory of 1818 noted that the habitual use of opium could lead to "tremors, paralysis, stupidity and general emaciation." Balancing this danger, the text proclaimed the extraordinary value of opium fn a multitude of ailments ranging from cholera to asthma. (Considering the treatments then in vogue-blistering, vomiting and bleeding-we can understand why opium was as cherished by patients as by their physicians.)

Opium's rise and fall can be tracked through U.S. Import-consumption statistics compiled while importation of the drug and its derivative, morphine, was unrestricted and carried moderate tariffs. The per capita consumption of crude opium rose gradually during the 1800s, reaching a peak in the last decade of the century. It then declined, but after 1913 the data no longer reflect trends in drug use, because that year new federal laws severely restricted legal imports. In contrast, per capita consumption of smoking opium rose until a 1909 act outlawed its importation.

During the 1800s, increasing numbers of people fell under the influence of opiates-substances that demand ed regular consumption or the penalty of withdrawal, a painful but rarely life-threatening experience. Whatever the cause-over prescribing by physicians, over-the-counter medicines, self indulgence or "weak will"-opium addiction brought shame. As consumption increased, so did the frequency of addiction.

The story of cocaine use in America is somewhat shorter than that of opium, but it follows a similar plot. In 1884 purified cocaine became commercially available in the U.S. At first the wholesale cost was very high-S5 to $10 a gram-but it soon fell to 25 cents a gram and remained there until the price inflation of World War I. Problems with cocaine were evident almost from the beginning, but popular opinion and the voices of leading medical experts depicted cocaine as a remarkable, harmless stimulant.

Cocaine spread rapidly throughout the nation. In September 1886 a physician in Puyallup, Washington Territory, reported an adverse reaction to cocaine during an operation. Eventually reports of overdoses and idiosyncratic reactions shifted to accounts of the social and behavioral effects of long-term cocaine use. The ease with which experimenters became regular users and the Increasing instances of cocaine being linked with violence and paranoia gradually took hold in popular and medical thought.

In 1910 William Howard Taft, then president of the U.S., sent to Congress a report that cocaine posed the most serious drug problem America had ever faced. Four years later President Wood row Wilson signed into law the Harrison Act, which, in addition to its opiate provisions, permitted the sale of cocaine only through prescriptions. It also forbade any trace of cocaine in patent remedies, the most severe restriction on any habit-forming drug to that date. (Opiates, including heroin, could still be present in small amounts in nonprescription remedies, such as cough medicines.) "

And? Alcohol consumption did not go down during Prohibition, but organized crime flourished.

" In truth, nobody really knows exactly how much alcohol consumption increased or decreased during Prohibition."

[Hawk]

Do you think 21 year olds are not able to get heroine now if they want it?

Not as easily as you want to make it.

[Banned]

People kept drinking, just did it illegally. There was so much demand for alcohol that organized crime basically was created to supply this need.

After prohibition was repealed, we were still left with organized crime, who then went into illegal drugs. Thank you congress. Thank you totalitarian government.

[Jasaoke]

Alright, I'll weigh in here, too:

If you go to (fill in your fast-food chain here) and fill out an application for a minimum-wage job, you get an interview and then you have to pass a piss test so that you can flip burgers or stock shelves. It ain't brain surgery, no one's life is in your hands, but you gotta piss clean (maybe even just once) to get the job. Now, your clean-piss paycheck gets taxed on a local, state, and federal level, and as stated earlier in this thread, 5% of it goes to welfare. How is it fair that the people working to support the welfare system (taxpayers) are held to a higher standard than those they are supporting? Especially considering that welfare 'pays' better than minimum wage at 40 hours a week. (factor in the food and healthcare benefits)

If it's not an invasion of privacy to drug screen people who want to work for money, then it is not an invasion of privacy to drug screen people who want money for nothin' (or their chicks for free).

[Gallowglass]

Do you think 21 year olds are not able to get heroine now if they want it?

Not as easily as you want to make it.

Dude, that's crazy. Anyone who wants to get whatever they want can find it already.

[Banned]

Do you think 21 year olds are not able to get heroine now if they want it?

Not as easily as you want to make it.

What makes you think making it legal will make anyone want to take it?

Alcohol is legal, and you know I do not drink. (about 4 beers a year, if that), how come I am not addicted to alcohol? Why aren't you addicted to alcohol? Alcohol is very addicting you know, I have had a personal friend and a cousin die from alcohol addiction.

Do you think you will get addicted to heroine if it becomes legal? I don't. Why do you think so many "others" will?

[Banned]

Alright, I'll weigh in here, too:

If you go to (fill in your fast-food chain here) and fill out an application for a minimum-wage job, you get an interview and then you have to pass a piss test so that you can flip burgers or stock shelves. It ain't brain surgery, no one's life is in your hands, but you gotta piss clean (maybe even just once) to get the job. Now, your clean-piss paycheck gets taxed on a local, state, and federal level, and as stated earlier in this thread, 5% of it goes to welfare. How is it fair that the people working to support the welfare system (taxpayers) are held to a higher standard than those they are supporting? Especially considering that welfare 'pays' better than minimum wage at 40 hours a week. (factor in the food and healthcare benefits)

If it's not an invasion of privacy to drug screen people who want to work for money, then it is not an invasion of privacy to drug screen people who want money for nothin' (or their chicks for free).

No one is forcing you to work for McDonalds, or any other large chain. Bet you don't have to piss test for the K Band, or any band in Altoona.

If you fall down on some bad situation, any you are left with nothing but the government, then that is invasion of your personal privacy if you must drug test. What about if you are on disability, SSi, cannot work due to physical disability? Does the government have to right to screw your personal privacy because you need the SSi check to survive? So we can toke, but not some guy in a wheelchair?

[Hawk]

Do you think 21 year olds are not able to get heroine now if they want it?

Not as easily as you want to make it.

What makes you think making it legal will make anyone want to take it?

Alcohol is legal, and you know I do not drink. (about 4 beers a year, if that), how come I am not addicted to alcohol? Why aren't you addicted to alcohol? Alcohol is very addicting you know, I have had a personal friend and a cousin die from alcohol addiction.

Do you think you will get addicted to heroine if it becomes legal? I don't. Why do you think so many "others" will?

Predicting what everyone else would do by what you do is bizarre Joe. I don't predict what others will do based on what I would do.

[Hawk]

Joe, we touch on various principles that create a utopia for you that I think are wrong. There is no way to resolve our differences or change our opinions.

You think if all drugs become legal use will not go up. I think use will increase.

You think if business owners who are racist want to discriminate against minorities that is the way it should be. I strongly disagree.

You think that removing all mine regulations is okay. I prefer safety regulations.

You think companies should not have regulations relative to pollution. I strongly disagree.

Legal addictive drugs. More dead streams. More mercury laden fish and more poison in our water and land. More deaths in mines (based on the fact that deaths decreased after safety regulations). Allowing business to ban minorities. AND that's only four of your principals. Your idea of utopia is my idea of hell.

[f.sciarrillo]

There is no two wrongs here. It is the fact that there are people living off the tax payers money who do nothing but sit around shooting up, smoke dope, or snort lines. Welfare is the most abused system and something has to be to done to get the slackers, and abusers, off of it.

So, if they are going to treat it like a career, then they should be drug tested. There is no unconstitutionality about it. There is no invasion of privacy. Do you call needing a drug to get a job invasion of privacy? If you call needing a drug test to get welfare such, then you have to agree that it is to get a job.

Actually, I do see two wrongs...1st is the welfare state itself. It has done nothing but create a government sanctioned slave state. The so called "War on Poverty", instituted in the early 60's has begat us nothing but greater poverty. Personally, I'd abolish the welfare state and let private charities handle the situation. IMO, they've done a better job.

The 2nd, is,
yes, the invasion of privacy that comes with mandatory drug testing. Keep in mind, this is not coming from a private institution (which I have no problem with), this is coming from the government...is that really how a government should treat it's citizens? I'd also decriminalize drugs. The "War on Drugs" has created nothing more than increased drug usage, more potent drugs, militarized our police, and criminalized an entire segment of our population.

You know, politicians are nothing more than people who are living off the tax payers money...should we require a drug test of them too?

I don't see it as an invasions of privacy. I am looking at it as a means to get more slackers and abusers out of my money. And yes, politicians should also be drug tested.

[f.sciarrillo]

Do you think 21 year olds are not able to get heroine now if they want it?

Not as easily as you want to make it.

Not the case. Making it legal will not make it more available to people. it wil be the same as with cigarettes and alcohol. You seem think that there will be companies popping up and producing it? I don't think that will be the case. And even if there was, there would be laws they have to follow.

[f.sciarrillo]

The confusion with me lies in the fact that I am for legalizing dope, not the hard stuff. And I am also for drug testing welfare recipients. So I don't really know lol.

[Gallowglass]

Do you think 21 year olds are not able to get heroine now if they want it?

Not as easily as you want to make it.

Not the case. Making it legal will not make it more available to people. it wil be the same as with cigarettes and alcohol. You seem think that there will be companies popping up and producing it? I don't think that will be the case. And even if there was, there would be laws they have to follow.

I think that is totally the wrong way to go. Why does everything have to be immediately put under government control? "Tax, regulate, tax, regulate, tax, regulate", it's like a mantra. When did we all become a bunch of Chicken Little's thinking the government is the only thing keeping the sky from falling? Just decriminalize it and be done with it!

The confusion with me lies in the fact that I am for legalizing dope, not the hard stuff. And I am also for drug testing welfare recipients. So I don't really know lol.

Why? It's the hard stuff that has been made worse by regulation?

edited to add second comment

[Banned]

Do you think 21 year olds are not able to get heroine now if they want it?

Not as easily as you want to make it.

Not the case. Making it legal will not make it more available to people. it wil be the same as with cigarettes and alcohol. You seem think that there will be companies popping up and producing it? I don't think that will be the case. And even if there was, there would be laws they have to follow.

I think that is totally the wrong way to go. Why does everything have to be immediately put under government control? "Tax, regulate, tax, regulate, tax, regulate", it's like a mantra. When did we all become a bunch of Chicken Little's thinking the government is the only thing keeping the sky from falling? Just decriminalize it and be done with it!

Tax, regulate, tax, regulate---seems like Bill's idea of utopia. And everyone becomes drug addicts if not for government.

Bill, we have laws and regulations from government against drug addiction. So---how do we have drug addicts???? Must be a mistake, your god, government has failed????? No, its a lie. The government made drugs illegal, and because of that, no one does any drugs. Government always works, right?

[shredder138]

I think drug testing (for any reason) sucks. If you're for it, I think you suck. That's all I can add to this thread.

[shredder138]

If there was not welfare involved, most of you would not care if people did drugs. So, get rid of welfare benefits for people unwilling to work and no need for this thread.

If all drugs were decriminalized, the prices would go way down. It would also reduce the crime involved with the illegal drug business.

Win win situation. Decriminalize drugs, vastly change welfare. No need to test of drugs since they would not be illegal, and people would not have to dedicate their lives to buying high priced drugs. Reduce welfare and people would have to earn money if they wanted to buy drugs, just like they buy alcohol.

I couldn't agree more with you, Joe.