Duh- FL welfare/drug testing law ruled unconstitutional

[zibazinski]

When I know of good people who can't become parents and those that just have them with no intention of ever caring for them, I think it's a win-win. When some parents realize that their children are not going to be their meal tickets but that, in fact, the children and the govt expect the parents to feed their own children, then we will see CHANGE. But when you. Use welfare to buy votes, why CHANGE? You want to use your money to support unfit parents? No one is stopping you. I do not want my money used to support those that choose to not support themselves. Let alone bring in innocent children to secure their govt handouts.

[zibazinski]

If parents lost their kids and couldn't get them back, you'd see people stepping up.

[EVT1]

Jan 3, 2014 15:03:58 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Normal people pay their bills, then spend money on crap. But as we can see by certain posters, welfare is for paying their bills so they can spend their money on crap. So why should total welfare recipients think any different? Entitlement mentality.

Umm bullshit- 'normal' people are financial idiots that waste money on crap.  Being broke and in debt is the American way.  Good chance some of these people on welfare are in better financial shape than the average citizen. 

[djAdvocate]

Jan 3, 2014 12:46:43 GMT -5 workpublic said:

i am pretty much convinced my IT guy gets high regular.

we pretty much all do. IT comes naturally to a lot of the kind of folks who spark up. most "nerds" are really cool. also there is some kind of link between music, playing music and IT heads. 

kinda pointless to test you then, wouldn't you say?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 3, 2014 15:03:58 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

If he's smoking pot instead of feeding/caring for his children, his children are better off with a parent who has some common sense.

you seem to think those two are mutually exclusive.  they aren't, you know.......

[mmhmm]

Comes to mind a fellow I knew years ago in Indonesia (he worked with my husband).  One hell of a smart systems programmer.  Every day, at lunch, he could be found out behind the building smoking Sumatran Tiger Sh*t.  High as a flippin' kite.  Came back in after his "siesta" and did his job better than anyone else there.  Then, he'd go home ... smoking a little more of the "tender weed" on the way.  If you happened to see him then, you'd usually find him playing hide and seek, or some other game or activity, with his two kids.  As great a dad as he was a programmer.  I learned then not to make assumptions.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 3, 2014 22:54:43 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Comes to mind a fellow I knew years ago in Indonesia (he worked with my husband).  One hell of a smart systems programmer.  Every day, at lunch, he could be found out behind the building smoking Sumatran Tiger Sh*t.  High as a flippin' kite.  Came back in after his "siesta" and did his job better than anyone else there.  Then, he'd go home ... smoking a little more of the "tender weed" on the way.  If you happened to see him then, you'd usually find him playing hide and seek, or some other game or activity, with his two kids.  As great a dad as he was a programmer.  I learned then not to make assumptions.

when abraham lincoln fielded a complaint from a captain who had worked under grant that he was drunk on the job, lincoln was said to have replied "find out what whiskey he drinks, and distribute it to the other generals".

performance is all that matters to me, as an employer.  part of that is being safe, as well.  i won't tolerate someone being stoned at work for that reason.  however, if they want to get f(*ked up beyond all comprehension in their spare time, that is their business.

[mmhmm]

Agreed, dj (based on my own observation).  This fellow wasn't in a position to deal with machinery, or anything that might have caused a safety hazard.  He just sat at a desk and coded his little heart out.  Nobody said a word, other than an occasional:  "Wow!  How does he do that?"  

[EVT1]

Jan 3, 2014 22:46:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 3, 2014 12:46:43 GMT -5 workpublic said:

we pretty much all do. IT comes naturally to a lot of the kind of folks who spark up. most "nerds" are really cool. also there is some kind of link between music, playing music and IT heads. 

kinda pointless to test you then, wouldn't you say?

I think it is pointless period- because studies have been done that pretty much prove drug testing is a waste of money.  It is about as reliable as the 'personality tests'- in other words the old MMPI- when it comes to predicting the value of someone.

And I have proof!  I worked at a car dealership that got bought out- and their big trick was to have a drug testing van show up and check everyone as a condition to their application being accepted by the new owners.  And a funny thing happened- the big net caught six people- and out of those six the top service advisor and the two top sales reps were nailed.  They were not fired- offered rehab.  Of course the other three were fired on the spot. 

I know a few IT people- or I should say computer people- both have been getting high since forever- as in high school.  One has been a manager for years, ran a dot com startup, has his own business, the other found a niche in graphic arts.  I know how smart these folks are- so any company that would eliminate them because they get high on their own time is going to lose talent.

I will qualify this- they liked to smoke weed- as I did for a long time- we are not talking what coke or meth could do. The sooner the federal government gets weed off of schedule one the better. Marijuana-big fat hairy deal.

[mmhmm]

We had a bad one at the hospital several years back.  A controlled substance (I think it was either Ativan or Tylox) turned up missing in the drug count and couldn't be accounted for.  One tablet missing, if I recall.  When that happened, everyone who had touched the medication dispensing machine had to be tested.  One of our best nurses (and a good friend of mine) was on duty that night (as was I, as nursing supervisor), and both of us had accessed the machine (I had to get a newly prescribed drug the pharmacy hadn't stocked under the patient's profile). All of us had to be tested.  My friend tested positive for weed.  I knew she didn't smoke weed, but her husband did.  Turned out, they'd had a party on the previous weekend and she'd been talked into smoking a joint.  Since she didn't smoke the stuff, she didn't even finish the darned thing.  Still, it was in her system.  We were all scared to death we'd lose her.  Thankfully, she wasn't dismissed.  She was out of work for 6 weeks and had to attend some sort of classes, or something, but it didn't cost her the job.  I know it had been at least a couple of days since the "event", so she was perfectly fine at work.  Ridiculous, really.

[Tennesseer]

I was the HR rep who sat in on a terminated employee's appeal for reinstatement. She was terminated for cocaine in her system. She swore she did not do cocaine. When we asked her how it showed up on her drug screen test results, she said her boyfriend did do cocaine and it must have entered her system when she performed oral sex on him.

[billisonboard]

[djAdvocate]

Jan 3, 2014 23:11:56 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Agreed, dj (based on my own observation).  This fellow wasn't in a position to deal with machinery, or anything that might have caused a safety hazard.  He just sat at a desk and coded his little heart out.  Nobody said a word, other than an occasional:  "Wow!  How does he do that?"  

a young friend of mine showed up to a gig last week high on acid.  he played unusually well.

some people handle their medication better than others.  as the Pope would say "who am i to judge"?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 3, 2014 23:38:05 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

We had a bad one at the hospital several years back.  A controlled substance (I think it was either Ativan or Tylox) turned up missing in the drug count and couldn't be accounted for.  One tablet missing, if I recall.  When that happened, everyone who had touched the medication dispensing machine had to be tested.  One of our best nurses (and a good friend of mine) was on duty that night (as was I, as nursing supervisor), and both of us had accessed the machine (I had to get a newly prescribed drug the pharmacy hadn't stocked under the patient's profile). All of us had to be tested.  My friend tested positive for weed.  I knew she didn't smoke weed, but her husband did.  Turned out, they'd had a party on the previous weekend and she'd been talked into smoking a joint.  Since she didn't smoke the stuff, she didn't even finish the darned thing.  Still, it was in her system.  We were all scared to death we'd lose her.  Thankfully, she wasn't dismissed.  She was out of work for 6 weeks and had to attend some sort of classes, or something, but it didn't cost her the job.  I know it had been at least a couple of days since the "event", so she was perfectly fine at work.  Ridiculous, really.

criminalizing pot makes about as much sense as criminalizing watching cable news.  it is essentially harmless, and a LOT of people do it, so why bother?

[workpublic]

so why bother?

[mtman]

Jan 1, 2014 20:55:22 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jan 1, 2014 12:45:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i get that you don't want "your money" going to drugs.  fine.  but i think there is a big problem with this argument.  it has to do with micromanaging the affairs of others.  i think that the "no strings attached" approach is far better for a lot of reasons.  would it bother me that someone was buying crack with their food stamps?  of course.  but i don't really see what can be done about it without throwing out the guy who buys one six pack a week, or some seeds from Holland.  and since the evidence that giving welfare recipients the anal probe is totally cost-ineffective, there is no economic justification for it- only a "moral" one.  and since my morals inform me that it is none of my business, this issue disappears for me.

Well, there's a simple fix to that...take the cost of the test out of the next welfare check. That makes it cost-neutral...problem solved.

Great idea!.....But I don't think common sense would fly with our government.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 4, 2014 14:39:40 GMT -5 mtman said:

Jan 1, 2014 20:55:22 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Well, there's a simple fix to that...take the cost of the test out of the next welfare check. That makes it cost-neutral...problem solved.

Great idea!.....But I don't think common sense would fly with our government.

have you read any of this thread, mt?  rather than argue, let's do the quick math, shall we?

there are a total of 12.8M Amerians on welfare.  if we were to test them, say- once a month- that would be $500/year, excluding admin and eval.
total cost of doing that would be $6.4B.  if you count all of the folks on UE and food stamps, that cost rises to $33B/year.

the total cost of welfare was $132B in 2011, including food stamps and UE.

according to Florida's data, the anticipated failure rare for welfare recipients is 2.6%

assuming that ALL welfare funding went to the 12.8M people included in the 65M figure, and assuming we kicked every person off that tested positive, that would save $3.4B.

so, we would spend more than $6.4B to save less than $3.4B.  that doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

Republicans either can't do math, or this is not about saving money.

[mtman]

Jan 4, 2014 15:38:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 4, 2014 14:39:40 GMT -5 mtman said:

Great idea!.....But I don't think common sense would fly with our government.

have you read any of this thread, mt?  rather than argue, let's do the quick math, shall we?

there are a total of 12.8M Amerians on welfare.  if we were to test them, say- once a month- that would be $500/year, excluding admin and eval.
total cost of doing that would be $6.4B.  if you count all of the folks on UE and food stamps, that cost rises to $33B/year.

the total cost of welfare was $132B in 2011, including food stamps and UE.

according to Florida's data, the anticipated failure rare for welfare recipients is 2.6%

assuming that ALL welfare funding went to the 12.8M people included in the 65M figure, and assuming we kicked every person off that tested positive, that would save $3.4B.

so, we would spend more than $6.4B to save less than $3.4B.  that doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

Republicans either can't do math, or this is not about saving money.

Using your rational, it would be cheaper to not prosecute thieves, rapists and murders.....Cost more to imprison them than just letting them run free.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Cost more to imprison them than just letting them run free.

True, but bullets are cheap.  We could save bundles in the prison system if we really wanted too.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 4, 2014 15:53:31 GMT -5 mtman said:

Jan 4, 2014 15:38:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

have you read any of this thread, mt?  rather than argue, let's do the quick math, shall we?

there are a total of 12.8M Amerians on welfare.  if we were to test them, say- once a month- that would be $500/year, excluding admin and eval.
total cost of doing that would be $6.4B.  if you count all of the folks on UE and food stamps, that cost rises to $33B/year.

the total cost of welfare was $132B in 2011, including food stamps and UE.

according to Florida's data, the anticipated failure rare for welfare recipients is 2.6%

assuming that ALL welfare funding went to the 12.8M people included in the 65M figure, and assuming we kicked every person off that tested positive, that would save $3.4B.

so, we would spend more than $6.4B to save less than $3.4B.  that doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

Republicans either can't do math, or this is not about saving money.

Using your rational, it would be cheaper to not prosecute thieves, rapists and murders.....Cost more to imprison them than just letting them run free.

that is not my rationale.

my rationale is that IF this is a cost saving measure*, THEN it makes no sense (see highlight, above).

but i also object to your comparison of consensual crimes like smoking pot to non-consensual crimes like rape and murder.  when there are real victims, the cost of intervention is immaterial.

however, based on the fact that you didn't make this distinction, i will presume that you don't see it- and that you think that there is some MORAL reason for punishing drug users.  what would that be?

*this is absolutely how it was sold in FL, and how it is being sold elsewhere, to save you the trouble of asking me "who said that"?

[Tennesseer]

We all know the answer to that!

[djAdvocate]

Jan 4, 2014 16:55:15 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

We all know the answer to that!

i honestly don't.  but perhaps i am just having a limbic malfunction today.

[mmhmm]

Jan 4, 2014 16:58:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 4, 2014 16:55:15 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

We all know the answer to that!

i honestly don't.  but perhaps i am just having a limbic malfunction today.

If you are, it must be contagious. 

[vandalshandle]

Jan 3, 2014 21:14:30 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

When I know of good people who can't become parents and those that just have them with no intention of ever caring for them, I think it's a win-win. When some parents realize that their children are not going to be their meal tickets but that, in fact, the children and the govt expect the parents to feed their own children, then we will see CHANGE. But when you. Use welfare to buy votes, why CHANGE? You want to use your money to support unfit parents? No one is stopping you. I do not want my money used to support those that choose to not support themselves. Let alone bring in innocent children to secure their govt handouts.

Obviously we should bring back debtor's prison.

"Please sir! A little more porridge, sir?"


Interesting concept, though. Using parents' children as weapons against them...

[djAdvocate]

Jan 4, 2014 17:22:39 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jan 4, 2014 16:58:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i honestly don't.  but perhaps i am just having a limbic malfunction today.

If you are, it must be contagious. 

i am betting less than 1% of the general public understood my comment, but i am betting you are part of that group.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 4, 2014 19:41:37 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

Jan 3, 2014 21:14:30 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

When I know of good people who can't become parents and those that just have them with no intention of ever caring for them, I think it's a win-win. When some parents realize that their children are not going to be their meal tickets but that, in fact, the children and the govt expect the parents to feed their own children, then we will see CHANGE. But when you. Use welfare to buy votes, why CHANGE? You want to use your money to support unfit parents? No one is stopping you. I do not want my money used to support those that choose to not support themselves. Let alone bring in innocent children to secure their govt handouts.

Obviously we should bring back debtor's prison.

"Please sir! A little more porridge, sir?"


Interesting concept, though. Using parents' children as weapons against them...

zibanezer

[jkapp]

Jan 4, 2014 15:38:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 4, 2014 14:39:40 GMT -5 mtman said:

Great idea!.....But I don't think common sense would fly with our government.

have you read any of this thread, mt?  rather than argue, let's do the quick math, shall we?

there are a total of 12.8M Amerians on welfare.  if we were to test them, say- once a month- that would be $500/year, excluding admin and eval.
total cost of doing that would be $6.4B.  if you count all of the folks on UE and food stamps, that cost rises to $33B/year.

the total cost of welfare was $132B in 2011, including food stamps and UE.

according to Florida's data, the anticipated failure rare for welfare recipients is 2.6%

assuming that ALL welfare funding went to the 12.8M people included in the 65M figure, and assuming we kicked every person off that tested positive, that would save $3.4B.

so, we would spend more than $6.4B to save less than $3.4B.  that doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

Republicans either can't do math, or this is not about saving money.

If we deduct the test from the welfare check, it costs us nothing more than what we would have already been spending. They would get a $270 check instead of a $300 check, for example, and then get the regilar $300 checks every other month. And I said nothing about testing every month...I'd be satisfied with a random test in every four or six month period. And if they are on drugs, then we would only be out the $30 for the test, and not have to pay the other $270. Do liberals not understand cost-neutral? (Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't)

I'm not sure why you bring math into this since it plays no part...we'd be paying $300 every month, its just sometimes $30 of that money would go to a testing facility instead of the beneficiary. 

[mmhmm]

Hmm.  So, someone who doesn't take drugs and hasn't taken drugs is to be required to pay $30 to prove they don't take drugs and haven't taken drugs?  How about we stop you on the highway and charge you $30 to prove you don't speed, and haven't sped?  My taxes are going into that highway and you're making it less safe by speeding!  I just know you are!

[djAdvocate]

Jan 4, 2014 21:25:09 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jan 4, 2014 15:38:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

have you read any of this thread, mt?  rather than argue, let's do the quick math, shall we?

there are a total of 12.8M Amerians on welfare.  if we were to test them, say- once a month- that would be $500/year, excluding admin and eval.
total cost of doing that would be $6.4B.  if you count all of the folks on UE and food stamps, that cost rises to $33B/year.

the total cost of welfare was $132B in 2011, including food stamps and UE.

according to Florida's data, the anticipated failure rare for welfare recipients is 2.6%

assuming that ALL welfare funding went to the 12.8M people included in the 65M figure, and assuming we kicked every person off that tested positive, that would save $3.4B.

so, we would spend more than $6.4B to save less than $3.4B.  that doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

Republicans either can't do math, or this is not about saving money.

If we deduct the test from the welfare check, it costs us nothing more than what we would have already been spending.

that makes sense, economically.  but have you thought it through?

your average welfare recipient gets $160/month.  a pee test is $40.

so, you are suggesting that 97.4% of welfare recipients should take a 25% cut in their check to pay for a test that they will pass?

this seems like basically kicking people who are down to me.  is that what you had in mind?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 4, 2014 22:08:16 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Hmm.  So, someone who doesn't take drugs and hasn't taken drugs is to be required to pay $30 to prove they don't take drugs and haven't taken drugs?  How about we stop you on the highway and charge you $30 to prove you don't speed, and haven't sped?  My taxes are going into that highway and you're making it less safe by speeding!  I just know you are!

how about this: your boss makes you pay for your pee test?
or, if you are on social security: you have to take a pee test- AND PASS IT- before they will give you your check.

is there no limit to the pettiness and cruelty of the the self-righteous taxpayer?