Here are the comments from the OP on Facebook:
MASS exodus from Florida . . .
Highway I-95 and I-75 will be jammed for the next
month or so with druggies and deadbeats heading
North out of Florida, because this is the first state in the union to require drug testing to receive welfare.....
Hooray for Florida. In signing the new law, Republican
Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they
better make sure they are drug-free."
Applicants must pay for the drug test, but are
reimbursed if they test 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 will be banned from
receiving funds for three years!
Naturally, a few people are crying this is
unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional?
It's a legal requirement that every person applying
for a job has to pass drug tests in order to get the job,
why not those who receive welfare?
Forward this if you agree!
Let's get welfare back to the ones who
need it, in Canada, Australia and New
Zealand, not to those who won't get a job.
I AGREE !
Here are my original posting comments:
'Articles' like this piss me off. Why? Because they are knee-jerk "hot
button" issues meant to grab attention and nothing else. Do I think drug
testing should be done on welfare recipients?
-Sporadically.
-Why?
Here's some actual data on a pilot program:
-Sporadically.
-Why?
Here's some actual data on a pilot program:
Now, the short version is this: 0.2 That's right. two-tenths of one
percent. According to the research, that's well below Tennessee's drug
usage rate of 8% for ALL people.
So, in conclusion, all of the pulpit banging on this issue is mostly bullshit. If testing is done, IMHO this is how it should be.
Once every (x) years a random panel of recipients in a set area is tested. There should be (x) numbers of areas per state based on population density.
IF the results of the test show usage of welfare recipients in a give are to be equal or higher than the average usage of ALL people for the area, then testing should be increased in frequency until the numbers drop.
Why this approach? Because as a country we waste too much damn money on programs that make no difference other than pander to a political base.
In the case study for Tennessee, we see that a regular testing schedule would be a monumental waste of taxpayer's money.
So, we should balance the need for testing against recorded rates.
More data is needed to give a comprehensive result for each state. Articles like the one in this post are the worst kind as they are outright lies, and offer near nothing of value to the reader.
-Oh right, this isn't an article. Its a picture with a comment with no supporting evidence, no author, no point but to incite anger period.
As a matter of fact, the heralded Gov Rick Scott mentioned in this picture has given up on trying to test welfare recipients in Florida.
According to the article: The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of Luis Lebron, an Orlando Navy veteran and single father who refused to submit to a urine test. The 11th Circuit found that only about 2.6 percent of Florida welfare applicants failed the drug test during the four months the law was in effect, almost half for marijuana use." Yep, 2.6 percent. So, why am I so mad? Because bullshit opinion pieces like this picture try to pass themselves off as legitimate news/information and mislead people I respect with lies and misinformation.
Educate yourselves people. Google is your friend. Fact-check, question, and learn."
Note- I'm still working out formatting and grammar issues. (I need a better editor than the generic one that Blogspot uses) I also don't know yet if it is possible to link the original comments from the responses I got on FB. I'll see if I can link the post here.
I'm in the process of re-blogging some of my more lengthy Facebook posts and responses here as the lack of formatting on Facebook is driving my OCD to dark places.
So, in conclusion, all of the pulpit banging on this issue is mostly bullshit. If testing is done, IMHO this is how it should be.
Once every (x) years a random panel of recipients in a set area is tested. There should be (x) numbers of areas per state based on population density.
IF the results of the test show usage of welfare recipients in a give are to be equal or higher than the average usage of ALL people for the area, then testing should be increased in frequency until the numbers drop.
Why this approach? Because as a country we waste too much damn money on programs that make no difference other than pander to a political base.
In the case study for Tennessee, we see that a regular testing schedule would be a monumental waste of taxpayer's money.
So, we should balance the need for testing against recorded rates.
More data is needed to give a comprehensive result for each state. Articles like the one in this post are the worst kind as they are outright lies, and offer near nothing of value to the reader.
-Oh right, this isn't an article. Its a picture with a comment with no supporting evidence, no author, no point but to incite anger period.
As a matter of fact, the heralded Gov Rick Scott mentioned in this picture has given up on trying to test welfare recipients in Florida.
According to the article: The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of Luis Lebron, an Orlando Navy veteran and single father who refused to submit to a urine test. The 11th Circuit found that only about 2.6 percent of Florida welfare applicants failed the drug test during the four months the law was in effect, almost half for marijuana use." Yep, 2.6 percent. So, why am I so mad? Because bullshit opinion pieces like this picture try to pass themselves off as legitimate news/information and mislead people I respect with lies and misinformation.
Educate yourselves people. Google is your friend. Fact-check, question, and learn."
Note- I'm still working out formatting and grammar issues. (I need a better editor than the generic one that Blogspot uses) I also don't know yet if it is possible to link the original comments from the responses I got on FB. I'll see if I can link the post here.
I'm in the process of re-blogging some of my more lengthy Facebook posts and responses here as the lack of formatting on Facebook is driving my OCD to dark places.
