Duh- FL welfare/drug testing law ruled unconstitutional

[Tennesseer]

Jan 5, 2014 21:23:26 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 9:34:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

It is always interesting to see the postings plummet in number late in the afternoon, which tells me most folks are posting from work on their employer's dime and time.

The response will be 'I got the day's work done early'.  Well if you got the work done early, then you do not have enough work to earn your keep.  Ask your supervisor for more work (like that is ever going to happen).  If you are a business owner, or retired,  have at it.  Most posters are not business owners or retired.

Some folks would receive paycheck of zero dollars if an employer charged a dollar for each letter typed in message board post, or anything else not work related, during the time they were supposed to be working.  Employers should probably install software programs to follow employee keystrokes on company computers.  No less invasive than having to initially, and then randomly, pee for welfare assistance.

Ok, mmhmm. Maybe you weren't targeting the posters here but his post clearly was. So no, I'm not the one making it about me or this board.

Is ìt not true the postings go down during week nights?  It sure is true on P&M and Current Events.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 21:27:27 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 5, 2014 21:23:26 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Ok, mmhmm. Maybe you weren't targeting the posters here but his post clearly was. So no, I'm not the one making it about me or this board.

Is ìt not true the postings go down during week nights?  It sure is true on P&M and Current Events.

I'm not saying it is or isn't. Mmhmm accused me if making her comment about this board and I pointed out that I wasn't the one that did. My mistake was in combining the two posts and thinking she said them both. I'm on my work-provided iPhone (the one they don't charge me to use personally), and it is hard to scroll back

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2014 20:58:28 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 20:49:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you know what i find strange about it?  conservatives are always talking about how they want the guvmint out of their lives.  but they want everyone peeing in a jar to show that THEIR money is not being wasted, creating the most invasive bureaucracy i can think of.

utterly bizarre.

If I ever accept government benefits I will gladly pee in a cup...

immaterial.  as it is with the 97.4% of welfare recipients who have nothing to worry about.
this is not about YOU.  you don't lose any of your privacy by passing a test.
nor do you lose your funding.

capice?

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 21:24:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2014 18:02:18 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Believe it, or not.  I do not see any difference between someone (especially, someone who really needs the help) taking welfare and some jerk playing when he ought to be working and accepting a paycheck for it.  It's the same mentality.

If a welfare recipient reaches a point where they're no longer entitled to benefits, or are found to be defrauding the system they, too, are "fired".  They no longer collect welfare.  Welfare recipients are "fired" all the time.

i was wondering who would bring that up.  well done.

i also find it odd that someone thinks that defrauding their employer is any different than defrauding their government. 

Who is defrauding their employer?

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 21:24:16 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

you know what i find strange about it? conservatives are always talking about how they want the guvmint out of their lives. but they want everyone peeing in a jar to show that THEIR money is not being wasted, creating the most invasive bureaucracy i can think of.

utterly bizarre.

No. What the conservatives want is for the "guvmint" to simply stop taking their tax money and handing it to drug addicts and alcoholics.

I don't think anyone here has argued in favor of giving tax money to drug addicts and alcoholics.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 21:29:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2014 20:58:28 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

If I ever accept government benefits I will gladly pee in a cup...

immaterial.  as it is with the 97.4% of welfare recipients who have nothing to worry about.
this is not about YOU.  you don't lose any of your privacy by passing a test.
nor do you lose your funding.

capice?

I was escorted into a bathroom by a nurse...I can assure you I lost privacy by taking the test! But I'm I'm because I knew I would pass it. Otherwise I would have bailed on the job.

If they were really smart they would out and out deny anyone benefits that refused the test. Those that agreed to the test (likely to be clean) can just be sampled. Since the complaint is there are no cost savings, this should work

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 21:35:35 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jan 5, 2014 21:24:16 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

No. What the conservatives want is for the "guvmint" to simply stop taking their tax money and handing it to drug addicts and alcoholics.

I don't think anyone here has argued in favor of giving tax money to drug addicts and alcoholics.

If we can't test for them then we can't weed them out

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 21:37:17 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 21:35:35 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I don't think anyone here has argued in favor of giving tax money to drug addicts and alcoholics.

If we can't test for them then we can't weed them out

Yes, it can be done.  Most of them will have a record of abuse, either with the police or with local hospitals.  Some modification to HIPAA might be required for medical records but police records could be obtained for this purpose.  Observation of the individual and their family dynamics should be a part of the qualifying process, but that will take manpower and resources. My objection is to putting everyone through the ringer to catch that nasty 6%.  It's expensive and it's ineffective, as has been proven.

[Deleted]

Jan 5, 2014 21:35:35 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jan 5, 2014 21:24:16 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

No. What the conservatives want is for the "guvmint" to simply stop taking their tax money and handing it to drug addicts and alcoholics.

I don't think anyone here has argued in favor of giving tax money to drug addicts and alcoholics.

If that were the case, why is there any objection to testing? I say BS to being the cost.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 21:42:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jan 5, 2014 21:37:17 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

If we can't test for them then we can't weed them out

Yes, it can be done.  Most of them will have a record of abuse, either with the police or with local hospitals.  Some modification to HIPAA might be required for medical records but police records could be obtained for this purpose.  Observation of the individual and their family dynamics should be a part of the qualifying process, but that will take manpower and resources. My objection is to putting everyone through the ringer to catch that nasty 6%.  It's expensive and it's ineffective, as has been proven.

Your way sounds much more labor intensive which will be more expensive than a quick pee test

[mmhmm]

My way would work in the long-term and is actually very inexpensive.  Police and medical records can be made available through computers with no more than a click or two.  Pee tests are going to have to be repeated ... and repeated, and repeated, and repeated ... and, as I said, it's ineffective.  My way is also more respecting of individual privacy and humanity.

[Deleted]

Jan 5, 2014 21:53:00 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

My way would work in the long-term and is actually very inexpensive.  Police and medical records can be made available through computers with no more than a click or two.  Pee tests are going to have to be repeated ... and repeated, and repeated, and repeated ... and, as I said, it's ineffective.  My way is also more respecting of individual privacy and humanity.

I agree.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2014 21:24:16 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

you know what i find strange about it? conservatives are always talking about how they want the guvmint out of their lives. but they want everyone peeing in a jar to show that THEIR money is not being wasted, creating the most invasive bureaucracy i can think of.

utterly bizarre.

No. What the conservatives want is for the "guvmint" to simply stop taking their tax money and handing it to drug addicts and alcoholics.

really?  so you are against federally funded treatment centers for the poor?

what do you suggest for them?  school of hard knocks?  prison?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2014 21:36:09 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 21:29:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

immaterial.  as it is with the 97.4% of welfare recipients who have nothing to worry about.
this is not about YOU.  you don't lose any of your privacy by passing a test.
nor do you lose your funding.

capice?

I was escorted into a bathroom by a nurse...I can assure you I lost privacy by taking the test! But I'm I'm because I knew I would pass it. Otherwise I would have bailed on the job.

i would have bailed even though i would have passed.

If they were really smart they would out and out deny anyone benefits that refused the test. Those that agreed to the test (likely to be clean) can just be sampled. Since the complaint is there are no cost savings, this should work

great.  so, if your assert your privacy right, you lose your benefits?  lovely.  welcome to the 4th reich, where my piss is your property.

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 21:59:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2014 21:24:16 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

No. What the conservatives want is for the "guvmint" to simply stop taking their tax money and handing it to drug addicts and alcoholics.

really?  so you are against federally funded treatment centers for the poor?

what do you suggest for them?  school of hard knocks?  prison?

This is a very important aspect of the changes needed to make this whole mess work the way it should work.  Those who are truly unable to support themselves should not just be left to do without.  That's wrong.  It's just wrong in more ways than I could write.  We need treatment programs.  We need training programs.  We need proper, thorough screening techniques and follow-up.  We have none of some of that and very little of the rest of it.  We're going to have to do it, so why not make an effort to do it correctly?  Will it cost money?  Yes.  Will that money spent mean less money down the road?  Yes, I believe it will.

[Tennesseer]

Bottom line right now is pee tests for Florida welfare recipients is unconstitutional. Florida will appeal the decision. So we might as well wait for that future ruling.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 22:03:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2014 21:36:09 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I was escorted into a bathroom by a nurse...I can assure you I lost privacy by taking the test! But I'm I'm because I knew I would pass it. Otherwise I would have bailed on the job.

i would have bailed even though i would have passed.

If they were really smart they would out and out deny anyone benefits that refused the test. Those that agreed to the test (likely to be clean) can just be sampled. Since the complaint is there are no cost savings, this should work

great.  so, if your assert your privacy right, you lose your benefits?  lovely.  welcome to the 4th reich, where my piss is your property.

Sounds fair to me....your piss is your property and the taxdollars you are grabbing for are MY (and my fellow taxpayers) property.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2014 21:47:39 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 21:42:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Yes, it can be done.  Most of them will have a record of abuse, either with the police or with local hospitals.  Some modification to HIPAA might be required for medical records but police records could be obtained for this purpose.  Observation of the individual and their family dynamics should be a part of the qualifying process, but that will take manpower and resources. My objection is to putting everyone through the ringer to catch that nasty 6%.  It's expensive and it's ineffective, as has been proven.

Your way sounds much more labor intensive which will be more expensive than a quick pee test

let's say it is 10x as expensive (i doubt it).
if you spend 10x as much money testing 1/40th the number of people, that would:

1) save 75% of cost
2) be nearly 100% effective
3) not deprive 97.4% of the adult population of their right to NOT have their urine randomly inspected for no constitutional reason whatsoever.

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 22:05:51 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 22:03:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

great.  so, if your assert your privacy right, you lose your benefits?  lovely.  welcome to the 4th reich, where my piss is your property.

Sounds fair to me....your piss is your property and the taxdollars you are grabbing for are MY (and my fellow taxpayers) property.

No.  Your taxes, my taxes, and everyone else's taxes are the government's property to be spent on the populace as a whole.  Would it were actually done that way!

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2014 22:04:57 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jan 5, 2014 21:59:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

really?  so you are against federally funded treatment centers for the poor?

what do you suggest for them?  school of hard knocks?  prison?

This is a very important aspect of the changes needed to make this whole mess work the way it should work.  Those who are truly unable to support themselves should not just be left to do without.  That's wrong.  It's just wrong in more ways than I could write.  We need treatment programs.  We need training programs.  We need proper, thorough screening techniques and follow-up.  We have none of some of that and very little of the rest of it.  We're going to have to do it, so why not make an effort to do it correctly?  Will it cost money?  Yes.  Will that money spent mean less money down the road?  Yes, I believe it will.

this brings us full circle.  if conservatives were suggesting that we should take the 2.6% and put them in a funded treatment program, i would feel somewhat differently about this whole discussion.  after all, such programs are VASTLY more expensive than welfare.  but again, clearly, this is not about drugs.  this is about moralizing about casual drug use.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 21:59:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2014 21:24:16 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

No. What the conservatives want is for the "guvmint" to simply stop taking their tax money and handing it to drug addicts and alcoholics.

really?  so you are against federally funded treatment centers for the poor?

what do you suggest for them?  school of hard knocks?  prison?

In the last 25 years we have seen an explosion of druggies and their lifestyle invade our once nice city. They pretty much congregate in one government housing complex. Infeelmsafer knowing these dregs of society are all caged in that complex. On by one they have been shooting each other. I'm thinking natural selection might solve our issue since the police can't seem too

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2014 22:05:51 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 22:03:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

great.  so, if your assert your privacy right, you lose your benefits?  lovely.  welcome to the 4th reich, where my piss is your property.

Sounds fair to me....your piss is your property and the taxdollars you are grabbing for are MY (and my fellow taxpayers) property.

no, your tax dollars are not your property.  if they were, YOU could say what is done with them.

you can't.  i can sense your frustration about that. 

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2014 22:05:52 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Bottom line right now is pee tests for Florida welfare recipients is unconstitutional. Florida will appeal the decision. So we might as well wait for that future ruling.

i look forward to it.  this could end up being a very big deal.

that is the great thing about all of these crazy laws that social conservatives are passing.  when they are found unconstutional, they lead to things like gay marriage in f(*king UTAH, of all places.

it is a great time to be a liberal.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 22:09:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2014 22:04:57 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

This is a very important aspect of the changes needed to make this whole mess work the way it should work.  Those who are truly unable to support themselves should not just be left to do without.  That's wrong.  It's just wrong in more ways than I could write.  We need treatment programs.  We need training programs.  We need proper, thorough screening techniques and follow-up.  We have none of some of that and very little of the rest of it.  We're going to have to do it, so why not make an effort to do it correctly?  Will it cost money?  Yes.  Will that money spent mean less money down the road?  Yes, I believe it will.

this brings us full circle.  if conservatives were suggesting that we should take the 2.6% and put them in a funded treatment program, i would feel somewhat differently about this whole discussion.  after all, such programs are VASTLY more expensive than welfare.  but again, clearly, this is not about drugs.  this is about moralizing about casual drug use.

I'm neither after the casual drug user. I'm after the gangbangers from NYC who are bringing heir ghetto lifestyle and invading my town. If we cut off their funding odds are they will take their baby mommas and go back under the rock they came from.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 22:10:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2014 22:05:51 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Sounds fair to me....your piss is your property and the taxdollars you are grabbing for are MY (and my fellow taxpayers) property.

no, your tax dollars are not your property.  if they were, YOU could say what is done with them.

you can't.  i can sense your frustration about that. 

Once collected by the government, I agree. But if we can get able bodied adults off the government dole and make other changes to stop pissing away taxpayer money, perhaps more of that money will remain in my pocket.

I can honestly see why the uber wealthy try to hide heir money offshore or renounce their citizenship.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2014 22:17:26 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 22:10:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

no, your tax dollars are not your property.  if they were, YOU could say what is done with them.

you can't.  i can sense your frustration about that. 

Once collected by the government, I agree. But if we can get able bodied adults off the government dole and make other changes to stop pissing away taxpayer money, perhaps more of that money will remain in my pocket.

if money is your concern, then drug testing is not your cup of tea. 

I can honestly see why the uber wealthy try to hide heir money offshore or renounce their citizenship.

and they are perfectly welcome to do that.  but they will find, if they look into it, is that most places worth living are far more taxing than the US.  which is why that, despite their bluster, the Romney's of the world continue to live here and WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE about it, rather than doing something which would harm their assets.  after all- the whining is totally free.  witness this board. 

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 22:23:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2014 22:17:26 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Once collected by the government, I agree. But if we can get able bodied adults off the government dole and make other changes to stop pissing away taxpayer money, perhaps more of that money will remain in my pocket.

if money is your concern, then drug testing is not your cup of tea. 

I can honestly see why the uber wealthy try to hide heir money offshore or renounce their citizenship.

and they are perfectly welcome to do that.  but they will find, if they look into it, is that most places worth living are far more taxing than the US.  which is why that, despite their bluster, the Romney's of the world continue to live here and WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE about it, rather than doing something which would harm their assets.  after all- the whining is totally free.  witness this board. 

There are plenty of countries less taxing than the US. For me, I don't I is that I would have the moxie to up and leave like that. Then again, I'm not billionaire status. If I knew I was having a huge windfall ( like the Guy from Facebook-forgot his name) coming and if I got out in time there would be no exit tax. I might consider it.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2014 22:13:22 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 22:09:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this brings us full circle.  if conservatives were suggesting that we should take the 2.6% and put them in a funded treatment program, i would feel somewhat differently about this whole discussion.  after all, such programs are VASTLY more expensive than welfare.  but again, clearly, this is not about drugs.  this is about moralizing about casual drug use.

I'm neither after the casual drug user. I'm after the gangbangers from NYC who are bringing heir ghetto lifestyle and invading my town. If we cut off their funding odds are they will take their baby mommas and go back under the rock they came from.

i am not following what NYC gangbangers have to do with the OP.  can you make the connection for me>?

[Tennesseer]

The Mississippi governor announced the other day he is going to introduce legislation to begin drug testing Mississippi welfare recipients.  He stated he would not model it after Florida's program but Utah's.

Utah's law differs from Florida's in that it first subjects TANF applicants to a questionnaire and only tests those whose answers give the state a reasonable suspicion of drug use. The reasonable suspicion standard makes the law less vulnerable to a civil liberties lawsuit alleging the tests violate the Constitution's protections against unreasonable search. Florida's law called for blanket testing and was halted by federal courts after only a few months.

The Florida law also denied benefits to anyone who failed a test. Utah's law asks applicants to enroll in drug treatment. Wilson said the 12 people who tested positive for drugs are still receiving benefits.

"They're all in treatment programs," he said.

Welfare Drug Testing Catches Only 12 Users In Utah

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 22:28:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2014 22:13:22 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I'm neither after the casual drug user. I'm after the gangbangers from NYC who are bringing heir ghetto lifestyle and invading my town. If we cut off their funding odds are they will take their baby mommas and go back under the rock they came from.

i am not following what NYC gangbangers have to do with the OP.  can you make the connection for me>?

I would like this testing done in my state. We have been infiltrated by gangbabgers from surrounding states. They come here because it is so easy to get benefits.'min addition to residency requirements, I want to see drug testing.