Florida vows to kill children of stoners

[Auxin]

The US state of florida, under a fanatical bigot known for draconian views, has put into law a bill that would eliminate financial assistance to families who fail or refuse mandatory drug tests of the poor. If parents can not convince a drug metabolite free person to help them their children will be left to starve under the new law.

Scott signs bill forcing drug tests on welfare recipients

Floridians will have to submit urine, blood or hair samples for drug testing before receiving cash benefits from the state, under a bill Gov. Rick Scott signed into law today.

"The goal of this is to make sure we don't waste taxpayers' money," Scott said. "And hopefully more people will focus on not using illegal drugs."

Taxpayers will reimburse welfare applicants for negative drug tests. Positive tests will carry an immediate ban on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for six months. A second positive test will result in a three-year ban on state assistance.

Other details in the new law:

• The Department of Children and Families must inform applicants that they can avoid a drug test if they do not apply for benefits.

• The state must assure each applicant "a reasonable degree of dignity while producing and submitting a sample."

• Parents who fail drug tests can get benefits for their children by naming a state-approved designee to collect the money. That designee must also pass a drug test.

ACLU Florida has suggested they might sue the state over the new law. A statement from the group's state director today did not mention legal action, but said they would have an announcement tomorrow about Scott's executive order forcing drug tests on state employees.

"Once again, this governor has demonstrated his dismissal of both the law and the right of Floridians to personal privacy by signing into law a bill that treats those who have lost their jobs like suspected criminals," Howard Simon said in his statement. "This wasteful program created by this law subjects Floridians who are impacted by the economic downturn, as well as their families, to a humiliating search of their urine and body fluids without cause or even suspicion of drug use."

About 233,000 Floridians applied for cash assistance in 2009-10, including 114,000 families, according to DCF statistics. This month, 93,170 Floridians received cash assistance, a drop of 8.3 percent from a year ago.

Scott today also signed a bill, HB 1039, banning fake bath salts. The legislation was pushed by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Bay County Sheriff Frank McKeithen.

 

[1]

That was from the 31st, ironic that the very next day americans were waving the flag and partying- chanting claims that the US is the best and most compassionate nation on earth.

** Also note that the poor will be required to pay for the drug test before finding out if they can receive assistance. That cash requirement alone will exclude drug free people from financial aid.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Auxin

[chnt]

oh my god...

can you please send the link to this?

[Auxin]

its the little [1] thing

[chnt]

oh shit i didnt see that..

thanks anyway.

[Distracted]

Spending all your welfare money on a mixture of kfc, booze, cigarettes and pokie machines is fine though.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Distracted

[chnt]

and maccas

[tripsis]

That's totally fucked.

[Auxin]

Spending all your welfare money on a mixture of kfc, booze, ciarettes and pokie machines is fine though.

 

Not just fine, mandatory in some jurisdictions!

I knew a girl that went on american food stamps, she started buying 20 lb sacks of grain, 20 lb sacks of potatoes, discount vegetables, and cooking all her food from scratch to save as much money as possible. In the end they threatened to take away her benefits because she was able to feed herself and still have food stamps left over. She had to buy potato chips, soda, and candy she didnt need or want with food stamps at the end of each month to remain qualified for future food stamps!

Everythings just a confused politicized mess in this country.

[chnt]

disgusting

[niggles]

Next they'll release the compassionate money for organs ammendment.

[Distracted]

Not just fine, mandatory in some jurisdictions!

I knew a girl that went on american food stamps, she started buying 20 lb sacks of grain, 20 lb sacks of potatoes, discount vegetables, and cooking all her food from scratch to save as much money as possible. In the end they threatened to take away her benefits because she was able to feed herself and still have food stamps left over. She had to buy potato chips, soda, and candy she didnt need or want with food stamps at the end of each month to remain qualified for future food stamps!

Everythings just a confused politicized mess in this country.

 

Bureaucracy at it's finest. Over here the councils are given a certain fundage and if they spend less than their allocated amount their funding gets cut the next financial year, so just at the end of the financial year you see them doing stupid worthless things simply to spend money so they can have enough money next year to spend on stupid things before the year ends...

IT MAKES NO SENSE!@

[Legba]

This is an act or terror.

[Teljkon]

asdadad

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon

[devance]

drug metabolites.

So if a poor family father or mother even uses anything the welfare system Safety net is not there for the children.

What detestable[Adj. 1. detestable - offensive to the mind; "an abhorrent deed"; "the obscene massacre at Wounded Knee"; "morally repugnant customs"; "repulsive behavior"; "the most repulsive character in recent novels"

abhorrent, repugnant, repulsive, obscene

offensive - unpleasant or disgusting especially to the senses; "offensive odors"

2. detestabledetestable - unequivocally detestable; "abominable treatment of prisoners"; "detestable vices"; "execrable crimes"; "consequences odious to those you govern"- Edmund Burke

abominable, odious, execrable

hateful - evoking or deserving hatred; "no vice is universally as hateful as ingratitude"- Joseph Priestly idea.

So where do they the parents going to go [pick up aluminum beer \cans for money?]

And if the children are taken to foster homes, even more damaging to the children.

So the state [Capitalism or communist or socialist is not going to solve the problem. as far as money.

Edited June 6, 2011 by devance

[ballzac]

So are they going to be drug testing rich cunts to see if they qualify for their massive tax breaks?

[Teljkon]

asdasda

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon

[ballzac]

sorry to tell you but I agree with the principle of not being a enabler for addiction. Problem is not in the law as it is to stop addicts from getting hand outs from the system they take advantage of just to keep up there habbit.

Problem is with prohabition to start with alienates individuals with the problem of addiction in there life. It is how ever bull crap that you should have to pay for the test for Fucks sake your eating your pride and going in for a hand out and you have to pay for it.

The first rule of breaking the law the law its self teaches you. "You have the right to remain silent everything you say can and will be used against you". The state its self tells you to shut up if your doing something illegal. As long as it remains illegal and in the dark it it will plaug attempts like this done with a good mind set of keeping folks with problems from abusing the system and there selfs.

I also dont think that Pot qualifies as a drug its a plant same goes for poppy and other schedualed plants no one needs to regulate what is set forth on this earth by the maker. If i were in a situation where I couldnt feed my children or my self I would glady hop off any drug to get that problem solved.

 

I agree with you that the source of the problem is prohibition, but I don't see impoverishing people as a way of helping them. The main reason that drug addiction is such a big problem (i.e. has such a negative impact on addicts, the people around them, and the society at large) is that the price of drugs - because of prohibition - is so high that it impoverishes them. It prevents them from living a stable lifestyle from which they can sort themselves out, and it drives many to crime (as in real crime as opposed to drug use). Preventing them from getting welfare will just make the problem worse. It's not going to help them, and it's not going to help the community. Meanwhile, as others have alluded to, it discriminates against drug users in particular. Surprise, surprise, drug users being discriminated against in our society. Thought I'd never see the day . It targets drug users instead of other people on welfare who do not spend their money in a way that others might see as appropriate. I personally think every welfare recipients house should be searched, and if any James Blunt CDs are found, they should be taken off welfare. That $30 could've bought a family sized bucket of chicken. Drug testing is not a sufficient determinant of addiction, so to say that this proposal is okay, you are saying that no one has the right to make the choice to use substances in moderation.

Edited June 6, 2011 by ballzac

[etherealdrifter]

fucked state of affairs.indeed.

balls>I personally think every welfare recipients house should be searched, and if any James Blunt CDs are found, they should be taken off welfare. That $30 could've bought a family sized bucket of chicken.

once again man,..... you should be an even more political brother

[CβL]

This is a step backwards to say the least. Gambling, alcohol and cigarettes are going to be unaffected I assume?

[WoodDragon]

In the Northern Territory they 'quarantined' welfare payments so that it wasn't spent on grog. The children actually ate more, and the parents weren't starved or otherwise bankrupted to death, although the fact that it was targeted at aboriginal people didn't fly well.

Neverthless, it demonstrates that there are better ways of ensuring the health of disadvantaged people, without rendering them completely penniless, or imposing a conservative moral code on them through financial coercion. Many people have drug habits because they are poor, and many poor people might use drugs but not in a way that threatens either their welfare or their children's. In either case I can't see how putting them on the streets, with nothing in the wallets, helps their situation.

All I see is ideological intolerance maquerading as concern for the welfare of the poor. If they were really worried about the people with serious drug problems, they'd do something to change the circumstances that put them there in the first place, instead of just witholding welfare.

[nabraxas]

their children will be left to starve under the new law.

As i understand it this law only targets cash payments made under the TANF (Temporary Aid for Needy Families), so a positive result wouldn't stop people from getting their food stamps or from qualifying for Medicaid, child care assistance, unemployment, job training programs, etc.

I disagree w/the scheme.

[Teljkon]

On 06/06/2011 at 2:59 AM, ballzac said:

I agree with you that the source of the problem is prohibition, but I don't see impoverishing people as a way of helping them. The main reason that drug addiction is such a big problem (i.e. has such a negative impact on addicts, the people around them, and the society at large) is that the price of drugs - because of prohibition - is so high that it impoverishes them. It prevents them from living a stable lifestyle from which they can sort themselves out, and it drives many to crime (as in real crime as opposed to drug use). Preventing them from getting welfare will just make the problem worse. It's not going to help them, and it's not going to help the community. Meanwhile, as others have alluded to, it discriminates against drug users in particular. Surprise, surprise, drug users being discriminated against in our society. Thought I'd never see the day . It targets drug users instead of other people on welfare who do not spend their money in a way that others might see as appropriate. I personally think every welfare recipients house should be searched, and if any James Blunt CDs are found, they should be taken off welfare. That $30 could've bought a family sized bucket of chicken. Drug testing is not a sufficient determinant of addiction, so to say that this proposal is okay, you are saying that no one has the right to make the choice to use substances in moderation.

sdsdfsdf

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon

[ballzac]

if you cant feed YOUR FUCKING KIDS YOU DONT NEED TO FEED YOUR FUCKING HABIT.

 

Of course there's personal and familial responsibility for those with a drug habit, but there's also social responsibility for those NOT in that situation. If we have policies intended to improve our society, then those policies should do just that.

[qualia]

i think this thread titles a little incendiary.

[faustus]

Parents who fail drug tests can get benefits for their children by naming a state-approved designee to collect the money. That designee must also pass a drug test.

this bill is pretty fucking chat, but the difference between complete chatness and pure evil is this point.

auxin, your peoples are an intriguing lot. it's as though every aspect of america's core is the manifestation of human nature in the absence of any restraint.

wait... there's a word for that, innit?

regardless, if drug law reform is to get it right, we need examples of how it goes wrong. so on the behalf of the rest of the world, i'd like to thank you and your country for sacrificing its people on all of these quirky social experiments.