florida drug testing for people on welfare

Last edited:
Paul1000RR said:
BTW firestart, you're one of the few people on here who i actually enjoy having a discussion with. Instead of getting into name calling and insults you actually add valuable insight and show a different perspective on things. :D
Click to expand...

Agreed... I like having a discussion with somebody who uses facts and well-thought of arguments even when I don't agree with some of them.. Speaking of which... :D

So how are the other 70% surviving then? Go to where there are jobs instead of making excuses. If the choice is go find work or die of starvation the choice is simple.
Click to expand...
You eventually get to the point where there just aren't enough jobs no matter where those 30% of people go. Also, in some case, they have no way of leaving where they are - how are you gonna afford first and last in the big city if you're unemployed in the sticks?

unished? Some people believe that they are "owed" something by everybody else. Maybe thats how you view the world as well, but i dont.
Click to expand...

I'll do and I'll tell you why.. A society is a contract between the rabble and the elites.. The rabble will work, obey the rules meant to keep the elites running the show and let the elites grow fat with their lion's share, while the elites are under obligation to manage the show so the rabble is fed, clothed, treated medically and not eating cat food when they grow old. It doesn't matter how you implement the system, whether it's communism, democracy, monarchy or something else. If the elites don't keep their end of the bargain, why give them the lion's share of the country's resources in the first place? Gone are the days of the emperors and pharaohs who ruled "by God's will." If too many people under your care are starving they'll get up in arms over it so you either do your job or invest in crowd control/propaganda (the way they do in North Korea and to a lesser extent in the US).
 
What will happen (my prediction)....

-The people on welfare that want to work (and use) will stop using and will continue to look for work.
-Most of the non-addicted rec users on lifestyle welfare will either quit using or quit until they find a way to beat the system (and they will find a way). They will stay on welfare, they will not be motivated by this to get a job.
-Most of the addicted screwed up lifestyle welfare people will end up on the street or move to another state unless they find a way to beat the system first. They will not stop using and will not find a job but they may turn to crime if they have not already.
-Those that do not use (hopefully the majority) will just keep doing what they are doing (lifestyle or look for work).

I am all for it BTW but it has to make financial sense for the government and it has to be hard to beat. Welfare abuse is a serious issue cost wise and we need a way to stop the cycle specially for the next generation. I have seen far too many where welfare was a career/lifestyle choice. These types of rules IMO will do more to stop the cycle for the next generation than benefit those already in it.
 
from an economic point of view, its an inefficient thing to do.

That beiing said I think its just that people find the idea of welfare checks being used for drugs to be distasteful. Lets face it, if you are getting a cheque from uncle sam, they have a right to tell you what to spend it on ( remember that whole no food stamps at fast food joints debate? )
 
OpenGambit said:
from an economic point of view, its an inefficient thing to do.

That beiing said I think its just that people find the idea of welfare checks being used for drugs to be distasteful. Lets face it, if you are getting a cheque from uncle sam, they have a right to tell you what to spend it on ( remember that whole no food stamps at fast food joints debate? )
Click to expand...

why is it inefficient? if you want welfare you pay for the piss test up front. even if the agency responsible fronts the cash for the test 1 druggie and you've saved yourself thousands of dollars.

you guys sound like these tests cost thousands of dollars, meanwhile a quick google search and ive found ones starting at 10.99
http://www.drugtestkits.ca/alcohol-urine-test/
 
Paul1000RR said:
why is it inefficient? if you want welfare you pay for the piss test up front. even if the agency responsible fronts the cash for the test 1 druggie and you've saved yourself thousands of dollars.

you guys sound like these tests cost thousands of dollars, meanwhile a quick google search and ive found ones starting at 10.99
http://www.drugtestkits.ca/alcohol-urine-test/
Click to expand...

Because the problem is quite small, the program implementation costs outweigh the costs saved. I am not sure why that is so contentious. Its just numbers. the fact that you found a 10.99 drug test really doesn't tell anyone anything...

its one thing to say you don't want people on welfare buyign drugs, its quite another to pretend that the govt would save a ton of money. (one of those positions is reasonable)

All studies i have seen show this isn't going to save any money.
 
Last edited:
OpenGambit said:
I was of the understanding that because the problem is quite small, the program implementation costs outweigh the costs saved. I am not sure why that is so contentious. Its just numbers. the fact that you found a 10.99 drug test really doesn't tell anyone anything...
Click to expand...

10 $ drug test before you give someone 1000$ a month doesn't matter?

but then again let any government set up and run a program like this and the costs vs savings will be 10 to 1 in no time.
 
Paul1000RR said:
10 $ drug test before you give someone 1000$ a month doesn't matter?

but then again let any government set up and run a program like this and the costs vs savings will be 10 to 1 in no time.
Click to expand...

you know that its not 10 bucks. Don't waste my time with imaginary numbers.

I didn't even disagree with the concept.

I guess you are disagreeing with the fact that I am not going to pretend that its a money saver? what a joke.

your math is also terrible, who the hell tries to justify these things on a indivdual basis?
 
Last edited:
OpenGambit said:
you know that its not 10 bucks. Don't waste my time with imaginary numbers.

I didn't even disagree with the concept.

I guess you are disagreeing with the fact that I am not going to pretend that its a money saver? what a joke.
Click to expand...

why does it have to be some ridiculous number? Drugs tests are fairly inexpensive and simple to administer. It SHOULD be a simple concept, but like i said get the government involved in it and it'll cost billions. If anyone doubts that just take a look at our own panel of officials hahaha
 
I agree...but lets even the field and do this for the rich who manage the companies too...I mean it's mostly those greedy ****s that got the country into the mess they are in now so they should definitely be sober when managing their companies. So test for booze, drugs, champagne, and cigars and execute any that fail.

What is it with you people? You'd kick people in the teeth when they are down? What would you say if they went a bit further and said..no smokes or the odd beer either....jesus...so much for the season of goodwill to all men.
 
jc100 said:
I agree...but lets even the field and do this for the rich who manage the companies too...I mean it's mostly those greedy ****s that got the country into the mess they are in now so they should definitely be sober when managing their companies. So test for booze, drugs, champagne, and cigars and execute any that fail.

What is it with you people? You'd kick people in the teeth when they are down? What would you say if they went a bit further and said..no smokes or the odd beer either....jesus...so much for the season of goodwill to all men.
Click to expand...

My argument is that just recently people were crying that the welfare rate should be raised 100$ a month because its not enough to survive on.
Now if you have money to spend on booze and drugs then WTF? Social assistance is for basic life needs and not weed and budweiser.
 
Paul1000RR said:
why does it have to be some ridiculous number? Drugs tests are fairly inexpensive and simple to administer. It SHOULD be a simple concept, but like i said get the government involved in it and it'll cost billions. If anyone doubts that just take a look at our own panel of officials hahaha
Click to expand...

the only ridiculous number is the 10 dollar number, because you know you pulled that out of your ***.
and without you having a decent estimate of how many people would reasonably be removed, you have no idea what the costs would be, you are just making it up that it saves money.
 
OpenGambit said:
the only ridiculous number is the 10 dollar number, because you know you pulled that out of your ***.
and without you having a decent estimate of how many people would reasonably be removed, you have no idea what the costs would be, you are just making it up that it saves money.
Click to expand...

go check out the link, this took me 30 seconds to find. im sure there are even better offers.
from a previous threads where everyone shared their stories of all the "welfare recipients" i just made a guess, and i think it would be worth it. am i right? i dunno, but id be willing to guess a lot of ppl abuse the system
 
Paul1000RR said:
Quiet you, the USA is slowly recovering and is on a path back to being a super power

PS I couldnt even type that with a straight face
Click to expand...

It will trickle down

P.S. I could but it took an effort.. Maybe I have what it takes to become a politician :D
 
Paul1000RR said:
go check out the link, this took me 30 seconds to find. im sure there are even better offers.
from a previous threads where everyone shared their stories of all the "welfare recipients" i just made a guess, and i think it would be worth it. am i right? i dunno, but id be willing to guess a lot of ppl abuse the system
Click to expand...

can you derive the cost of the RIDE program from the cost of breathlyzers?

its just a really really stupid thing to base your imaginary number of how much it costs from.

so you guessed the cost of the program, guessed the amount of people you would catch, guessed the amount of people on welfare, guessed the amount savings, and then came to the conclusion that this would save tons of money. Gotcha.
 
Last edited:
OpenGambit said:
Do you believe that the cost of a RIDE program is the cost of the breathlyzer?

its just a really really stupid thing to base your imaginary number of how much it costs from.
Click to expand...

ofcourse not, you got unionized cops making 100k a year who need to get paid overtime hahahah
 
Paul1000RR said:
ofcourse not, you got unionized cops making 100k a year who need to get paid overtime hahahah
Click to expand...

then why are you telling me to look at a link that has no indication of any costs (ok you showed me how much you can get a drug test for - does it work? does it work well enough to have a legal entitlement based on it?). and using that to say that it saves money.

This is just math. you came up with your 10 dollar number, which is clearly just wrong.

Are you now saying all cops make 100k a year? the ones that stand around at ride checks? Cool you went from gross underestimations to gross overestimations.


You are such champ, you took someone who agreed withi the point, and then started a dumb argument with him with imaginary numbers.
 
Last edited:
Cut them off and then what? Jail them for failing the drug test? Jail them for resorting to theft to feed themselves? Jail them for vagrancy? How much does it cost to house a prisoner? How much does a welfare recipient get? In peel it looks like they give 600 a month http://www.peelregion.ca/ow/applying/allowance.htm basic needs + shelter for a single person. 7200 a year vs 100,000 a year? Let them toke, I think it's cheaper than the alternative.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom