Florida To Drug Test Welfare Recipients

Originally Posted By: HunterBear71Drug testing in most work places is a safety issue. I don't really understand the rationale behind testing for aid recipients. I'm certainly not opposed to denying benefits to those that use the funds for illegal purposes.

So how do you expect to find who is using funds for illegal purposes???

I guess just asking them and beleiving their answer is all that's required????

If you've nothing to hide, why not take the test??
 
Quote:Do we really want children starving because they have horrible parents?...I don't want to sound hard hearted, but there are a lot of kids that would be better off in foster care than with uncaring and irresponsible parents...

I've known several that have actually been in that situation and were much better off than living in a really dangerous environment...
 
Quote:Drug testing in most work places is a safety issue.
84% of private companies require pre-employment drug screening and none of them test for alcohol use. It's clearly not a safety issue in "most" workplaces. Many employers don't hire tobacco users either.

I would impose similar conditions on anyone getting my money. No alcohol, drug, or tobacco use allowed, and only bare essentials provided.

If you are truly down on your luck, I am willing to spend my money to keep you from starving. If you can afford any non-essentials, you are not yet in need of my help
 
Originally Posted By: OldTurtleQuote:Do we really want children starving because they have horrible parents?...I don't want to sound hard hearted, but there are a lot of kids that would be better off in foster care than with uncaring and irresponsible parents...

I've known several that have actually been in that situation and were much better off than living in a really dangerous environment...

Certainly no one here is suggesting that they want children starving. But do the math...if you hand resource to drug addicted parents, can you be sure that any of it even reaches their children? If someone on assistance is not using drugs, then no harm no foul. As mentioned above, many of the people who pay for this assistance are required to drug test, so what's the problem with those receiving it doing the same?

I tend to agree with OT. And in any event, if requiring individuals on welfare to drug test exposes someone who is using, at least there is opportunity to deal with it and help them and their children who potentially are not receiving proper care...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: NM LeonQuote:Drug testing in most work places is a safety issue.
84% of private companies require pre-employment drug screening and none of them test for alcohol use. It's clearly not a safety issue in "most" workplaces. Many employers don't hire tobacco users either.

I would impose similar conditions on anyone getting my money. No alcohol, drug, or tobacco use allowed, and only bare essentials provided.

If you are truly down on your luck, I am willing to spend my money to keep you from starving. If you can afford any non-essentials, you are not yet in need of my help




Another excellent and reasonable proposal from Leon. I personally work in and am familiar with a variety of the "poorest" neighborhoods within 90 miles of my home, including public housing facilities and trailer parks.

With few exceptions, each home that I have been in has a television, usually cable television or a dish, a vehicle in the driveway, internet access, and at least one member of the household has a cellular phone.

What this tells me about those who would normally be associated with public assistance is that it is used to subsidize an existing lifestyle that already includes food and shelter - not actually provide a real safety net as we've all heard entitlements called. A true safety net would be one that provides food and shelter against heat/cold. If you can afford internet access, a cell phone, and a vehicle on top of your food and shelter, exactly how much need is one in for public assistance?
 
Originally Posted By: NM LeonQuote:Drug testing in most work places is a safety issue.
84% of private companies require pre-employment drug screening and none of them test for alcohol use. It's clearly not a safety issue in "most" workplaces. Many employers don't hire tobacco users either.

I would impose similar conditions on anyone getting my money. No alcohol, drug, or tobacco use allowed, and only bare essentials provided.

If you are truly down on your luck, I am willing to spend my money to keep you from starving. If you can afford any non-essentials, you are not yet in need of my help


Drug testing is marketed as a safety and productivity tool. Alcohol consumption is more obvious and employees suspected of being intoxicated are alcohol tested. The typical 5 panel drug test does not test for alcohol. I am not suggesting that people in favor of this law want to see children starving. I do believe that many children might suffer as a result of this action. I'm not totally against the law. I believe we do need to reduce and improve these programs so they are more efficient and less abused.
 
HB, bless your heart,,,, Those children in an environment that is not good due to drug and alcohol use will see NO BENEFIT from any increase or added provisions from welfare. What they will PROBABLY see is an increase in drug and alcohol use; further endangering those children you believe will benefit.

IMHO, NONE of the welfare aid received would be put to good use for the children. OT's earlier statement says it all.

Been there, seen it. A drug user or alcoholic is a drug user or alcoholic first, and formost; with no regard to those around them.
 
I like the idea of drug testing, but some if not most will find a way around it (falsify the test); those with children will more n likely have them doin` the peein.
 
Back
Top