I-95 Soon to be Jammed with Traffic!

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Hooray for Florida!!

I-95 will be jammed for the next month or so........Druggies and deadbeats Heading North out of Florida. Florida is the first state requiring drug testing to receive welfare! In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are 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 would be banned from receiving funds for three years! " Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's completely legal that every other working people have to pass drug tests in order to get a J-O-B which supports those on welfare!

Forward if you agree!! Let's get Welfare back to the ones who NEED it, not those who WON'T get a JOB.....

I AGREE!!! 100%.

[kieefer]

Hopefully more states will get to follow his lead.

10/2011

Several states have adopted drug testing for welfare recipients and others, and several thousand signatures are on a petition seeking to add Mississippi to that list.

The number is far short of the almost 90,000 needed by the Oct. 28 deadline to get the drug testing measure promoted by tea party leaders on the 2012 ballot.

Initiative 33 seeks to amend the state Constitution to require people receiving public assistance, state contractors, subcontractors and state employees to undergo random drug testing. The measure would bar illegal immigrants from receiving public assistance or a state salary.

Supporters of the initiative say they hope to get state lawmakers to pass the measure in the form of a law in the 2012 session.

Starting in July, those applying for welfare in Florida have to pay for their own drug tests. If they pass, they get reimbursed. Documents show 7,028 welfare applicants have passed the drug test so far, 1,597 have declined to take the test and 32 have failed the test.

The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging the law in Florida, saying it is unconstitutional.

http://www.the1789project.com/2011/10/6685/

Edited January 20, 2012 by kieefer
link

[Oh Shoot]

Holder got that blocked back in October, at least temporarily.

Has something changed? I don't see any recent news about it.

- OS

[kieefer]

Newest info I can find;

Gov. Rick Scott and Republicans plan a conservative push in 2012 | Gainesville.com

[Raoul]

Whadda ya mean soon to be...have you been on that road lately?

[Oh Shoot]

Newest info I can find;

Gov. Rick Scott and Republicans plan a conservative push in 2012 | Gainesville.com

Yeah, thanks, 'bout same as moi.

Froggy, methinks you got an old chain letter.

- OS

[mav]

I was under the impression this issue was still in court. I thought the ACLU file a lawsuit against a state that tried to enact such legislation.

[Oh Shoot]

I was under the impression this issue was still in court. I thought the ACLU file a lawsuit against a state that tried to enact such legislation.

Just kept Holder from having to do it. He probably has everybody's cell phone number over there anyway.

Anyway, yeah it's still on hold, but don't see anything about appeal so far; apparently first judge's actual final ruling is still pending or something.

- OS

Edited January 20, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest dubaholic2]

turns out this is a terrible idea. it costs the state way more money in drug testing that it saves on wellfare fraud. plus the number of applicants failing are minimal.

[56FordGuy]

turns out this is a terrible idea. it costs the state way more money in drug testing that it saves on wellfare fraud. plus the number of applicants failing are minimal.

Do you have some studies to prove that?

To me it's a matter of principle more than a matter of cost. Criminals should not be receiving government benefits. No welfare, no food stamps, no unemployment, and no government housing.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

make the ones that have to take the test to pay for it.. that will fix the funding problem.

[Murgatroy]

While I like the idea's fundamentals, I fear it's repercussions.

Most welfare families have at least one person 'working' to keep the welfare. Most likely the mother. She will have drug addict children and a drug addict husband/boyfriend. All leeches on the state, but the applicant, the mother in this example, is drug free and passes the screening.

No change.

The more dangerous one is that this works. Suddenly have have +1,000,000 plus drug addicted criminals without a government subsidization for food, shelter and so on.

The crime rate will sky rocket.

I think it is bull**** that many of these able bodied folks are too lazy to work for what they want and demand handouts.

But I think it is dangerous to cut them off and hope that they suddenly change their stripes.

[10-Ring]

I think that this legislation is a step in the right direction. However, anyone in the drug scene knows how to defeat a drug test. I once had an employee pass a drug test less than 24 hours after using. When I asked him how he did it he just said "You'd be surprised what you can buy at GNC."

[Oh Shoot]

turns out this is a terrible idea. it costs the state way more money in drug testing that it saves on wellfare fraud. plus the number of applicants failing are minimal.

Do you have some studies to prove that?...

How could there be a valid study without statistical sample drug testing in the first place?

- OS

[strickj]

While I like the idea's fundamentals, I fear it's repercussions.

Most welfare families have at least one person 'working' to keep the welfare. Most likely the mother. She will have drug addict children and a drug addict husband/boyfriend. All leeches on the state, but the applicant, the mother in this example, is drug free and passes the screening.

No change.

The more dangerous one is that this works. Suddenly have have +1,000,000 plus drug addicted criminals without a government subsidization for food, shelter and so on.

The crime rate will sky rocket.

I think it is bull**** that many of these able bodied folks are too lazy to work for what they want and demand handouts.

But I think it is dangerous to cut them off and hope that they suddenly change their stripes.

I think that this legislation is a step in the right direction. However, anyone in the drug scene knows how to defeat a drug test. I once had an employee pass a drug test less than 24 hours after using. When I asked him how he did it he just said "You'd be surprised what you can buy at GNC."

This.

The problem could be easily fixed in administration. We do not give a bunch of felons jobs as cops because we know full well what they would do with a badge. But we give project baby mommas on welfare jobs giving other project living baby mommas welfare.

[Guest NYCrulesU]

I like the idea. Somewhere it makes sense. But...like every other govermental plan...it is flawed and will wind up turning to crap, costing tax payers kazillions and failing miserably.

GO big government! /sarcasm

[Guest TargetShooter84]

Surprised to see you back here and posting froggy, takes some nerve to do that after lowballing on couple people with sales on another site. hopefully you won't here.

Edited January 21, 2012 by TargetShooter84

[Guest NYCrulesU]

Surprised to see you back here and posting, takes some nerve to do that after lowballing on couple people with sales on other site. hopefully you won't here.

Are you talking to me? If so I believe you may have me mistaken for someone else.....unless I'm completely missing something here.

I've never bought a single gun, or gun related item, online. Nor have I so much have made an offer for items online. I don't buy online. So that in itself makes it impossible for me to have ever had any bad purchasing dealings online. Every gun, magazine and bit of ammo I have purchased have all come from two local gun shops. I have sold 3 Glocks (two G19, one G26) online...locally..and met the buyers in person with all 3 sales going flawlessly.

So either I am mistaken and you are addressing someone else....or you are completely mistaken and have me confused with someone else.

If you are talking to me...just what exactly are you accusing me of? What is "lowballin on couple people on sales"?

[hornett22]

Whadda ya mean soon to be...have you been on that road lately?

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Guest bkelm18]

Surprised to see you back here and posting, takes some nerve to do that after lowballing on couple people with sales on other site. hopefully you won't here.

And who are you? The morality police?

[SavageSig]

make the ones that have to take the test to pay for it.. that will fix the funding problem.

And where do they get their money? From the government. Your argument makes zero sense. This is showboating for his constituency and a complete waste of money. I'm more about the dollars and cents than what's "fair" and "unfair".

[Guest bkelm18]

And where do they get their money? From the government. Your argument makes zero sense. This is showboating for his constituency and a complete waste of money. I'm more about the dollars and cents than what's "fair" and "unfair".

So it's ok for people to abuse the system as long as it saves money? Gotcha.

[DaveTN]

It will create thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars going to testing companies and suppliers with the taxpayers footing the bills. After the first year I would like to see a comparison of the dollars saved by rejection of benefits vs. the wages, supplies, and building costs, etc, of funding it.

I would rather see the money spent to build more jails and prisons to keep criminals contained than testing people where there is no PC or RAS of a crime.

Florida is going to need both. Not only are they going to need to fund this project, but they are going to have a rise in crime against innocent citizens and need more cops and jails.

When will they start this, so we can see the first wave roll into Tennessee?

[Guest NYCrulesU]

It will create thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars going to testing companies and suppliers with the taxpayers footing the bills. After the first year I would like to see a comparison of the dollars saved by rejection of benefits vs. the wages, supplies, and building costs, etc, of funding it.

I would rather see the money spent to build more jails and prisons to keep criminals contained than testing people where there is no PC or RAS of a crime.

Florida is going to need both. Not only are they going to need to fund this project, but they are going to have a rise in crime against innocent citizens and need more cops and jails.

When will they start this, so we can see the first wave roll into Tennessee?

Tennessee is bad enough. Meth and collecting welfare are national pastimes here. I'd bet statistically Florida has a lower welfare rate than Tennessee.

[macville]

And where do they get their money? From the government. Your argument makes zero sense. This is showboating for his constituency and a complete waste of money. I'm more about the dollars and cents than what's "fair" and "unfair".

My parents live in south Florida and he worked for two years at a school that was mainly kids with parents on welfare and trust me, they have money that the government doesn't give them. All these kids had the name brand, latest fashion clothing. Plus, most had cell phones and the majority of those had smart phones. Money is not an issue for poor people when it comes to things they want.

Even in TN it's not much different. Go into "poor" neighborhoods and look how many nice, new (built within the last 4 years) cars there. Or how many houses have satellite dishes. Heck, in fall 2010 I was working on a feature film in Nashville and while shooting in the projects (east side of downtown public housing) I saw so many signs of people taking my tax dollars for housing and food, but somehow found money to buy video games, TV's, cars, and all sorts of other crap. The worse was while we were there one day, one of the residents was having cable TV installed! I'm sorry, but if you don't have the money to pay rent or a mortgage, then you certainly don't have money to get cable tv.

So the money is there if people wanted to not take tax dollars. It's just that their priorities aren't straight. And yes, that is a somewhat sweeping statement, but from what I've seen, that statement applies to the majority, not the minority.