Video: Florida Welfare Drug Testing Debate
Far from saving the state money, Florida's new welfare drug testing law, promoted aggressively by Gov. Rick Scott, seems to be a budget buster. The law also seems likely to be found unconstitutional -- FoxNews's Megyn Kelly, host of the show "Kelly's Court," thinks so (as do we) -- and taking it through the courts to find that out will cost Florida taxpayers additional funds.
Unfortunately there have been a lot of these bills lately, this year and in other recent years. One more seems to be coming up in Ohio, and legislation may be coming up very soon in Congress -- we'll update here as soon as we know more.
Location:
FL
United States
See map: Google Maps
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!
More Journalistic Lameness
$178,000,000 to "save" $100,000 ?!
The female host does a LAME job at hammering home this point. It's only mentioned at the opening. Yet Mr. Blowhard baldguy dressed in pink who can't talk normally but has to shout everything, screams right at the outset, "on behalf of the taxpayers…" then goes on to cheer the unconstitutional testing program, what a complete doofus.
No one's going to call me a financial genius, but clearly I won't be putting my money in his hands to invest! Anyone who thinks spending $178,000,000 to keep $100,000 from being "wasted" is clearly a moron. Especially if he's a prohibitionist, since if we ended prohibition, any money spent by addicts on "hard" drugs could go straight to the state, under some regulated scenarios.
Clearly they need to test their consultants for conflict of interest!
And clearly their governor is yet another False Prophet of Prohibition, spewing his lies.
Blowhard shouting man proves he is such a doofus, "what is wrong with that?" he shouts. Someone needs to check his backers and portfolio. Only someone who gets lots of kickbacks from the drug testing industry would talk like that, for sure, not anyone with any sense of perspective, which they clearly lack.
Hm, I've watched the video twice now and it seems the second time it's different. She has a disclaimer at the end which I don't recall seeing the first time. Not only that but shouldn't judges take all information into account, it's not just about precedent, common sense should play a part, and common sense says (at least) that corporate welfare handouts of $178,000,000 to the drug testing industry in order to "prevent" $100,000 from being spent on drugs is idiotic.
Let's chop off some zeros to make it simple for the thug, ask that Mr. Blowhard moron if he'd hire a consultant for $1,780 to help him buy something so he could save $1 on that item. Or to put it another way, hey Mr. Shouting Man, just pay me $1,780 and I will find you a righteous deal where you don't overpay by $1; you'll be so glad you did since you are so fumed by the injustice of it all!
She needs to bring her gavel down hard! But didn't. Where is Maxwell when you need him?!
What's the difference between
What's the difference between welfare recipients blowing their money on illegal drugs or blowing their money on booze and cigarettes? Oh, they don't mention that, because the alcohol and cigarette companies make money that way. They hypocrisy is mind-boggling, and that fat screaming moron needs to get a reality check. Either that, or he's taking bribes from Big Pharma. It's costing a lot of money and it's unconstitutional. There is nothing wrong with doing drugs, but everything should be in moderation. We as human beings can put whatever we want to into our bodies, dangerous or not, absent harm to others. If someone on welfare wants to spend $40 to buy a bag of weed every month, then fine. That's definitely not wasting all their money. It's when someone has a serious drug addiction, and then spends most of their money on the drug, that it becomes a problem. The prohibitionists love to confuse drug use and drug abuse; it's one of their favorite tactics. But like all their excuses, they are deceitful.
Weed use
Your right about the alcohol, because they both alter ones thinking. . Show me one person who uses weed that only spends $40 a month. It's a additive drug and you'll see used everyday. The only ones that spend $40 or less a month are ones who grow their own. There's only 2% that fail because of how the drug test is given. Use either blood or swab (if works) randomly and you would see a much larger failure rate. I don't use, but have lived with a user and know users. There are multiple ways to pass a drug test after using minutes before being tested even if viewed by site or video of urine coming from their privates. As far as being unconstitutional, anybody ask me for money to buy food or pay bills (utility only), I would tell them to move in with someone else that's on welfare and share your bills and I would supply them with food not trust them to buy it. The majority of people that have been on welfare for more then a year use it as a way of life. They have no intention of being self supporting. As far as I'm concerned Welfare, (food, clothing and shelter only) should be given by means of an open bay barracks style of living, 3 good meals a day and cloths on your back. Work doing whatever needs to be done by the ones suppling the welfare and given a job you're qualified to do to get off welfare.
Vermin, you are humorous in
Vermin, you are humorous in your assertions.
Even at black market prices I can make, dollar for dollar, cannabis last longer than alcohol.
Lies and fallacies alter one's thinking far more than marijuana.
I drink coffee every day, am I an addict? I like to have a beer or two with dinner, am I an addict? My dad takes 3 pills in the AM and two in the PM, is he an addict? People who are depressed and take medications daily (the pills for the depression then the pills to counter the side effects and the other pills to lessen their side effects) are they addicts?
Your hype about marijuana addiction is grossly overblown! Is there some percentage who are addicts, probably since the world is a big place, but I've yet to meet one, and I would be surprised if it was more than one in 5,000 people. So should we crush the rights of the 5,000 because of that one? Should we crush everyone's rights because of that one? Should we, like you imply, cast shame on everyone in order to attempt (in vain) that one person from trying it.
How about if we legalized it so that 1 person could be accurately appraised as to its use, its pros/cons, instead of leaving it in the black market where s/he will only hear how great it is from the dealer? And the dealer will later say, "gee I'm out of pot, how about trying some heroin instead? You know there are many govt. agents and prohibitionists who say that pot is way worse for you than heroin, so if you can go for a week or two without pot, then heroin should be no problem for you. People like Vermin say so."
I would also suggest that you take a look at your own life. I've never had cable TV, only over the air. Are you one of those TV addicts who pays for TV? You sure are a junkie! I bet you can't go for a few days without watching TV, or even a week without watching your favorite shows. And what do those shows do for you? Do they educate you? Not if you're like most TV addicts, which you probably are. You probably watch brainwashing shows that are interrupted every few minutes to hawk some crap, some mind-altering sitcom or soap-opera or fake law-and-order drama; mind altering baloney.
No brain
Hey, the term addiction is thrown around way to much by morons in this society. I must be addicted to cannabis law reform updates, because I check everyday. Sometimes I even check numerous times a day. The point is its a decision to consume, a decision to continue to consume, and a decision to stop consuming. Plain and simple. Humans are creatures of habit with almost everything we do. This whole notion of addiction is absurd because its far to conflated with all sorts of concepts ranging from lack of will to habit.
We all must be addicted to putting clothes on, and watching our favorite tv shows? Don't forget about those people who get up at the crack of dawn to get their runner's high. Runner's are the biggest addicts of all, especially because the withdrawal symptoms are pretty scary. Seriously haven't any of you done the research or known anyone that works out all the time and then suddenly stops. The withdrawal is far far worse for those who stop exercising than with those who stop smoking cannabis.
More War on the Poor—Or How to Mind One’s Own Business
What a welfare recipient does with their welfare check doesn’t affect me. It affects the welfare recipient who spends the money. The welfare recipient is not likely to be someone who squanders every dime to the point of starving themselves and their children to death. Obviously, most of them (96%) are surviving the best they can. Another 2% just experienced the irrational wrath of a primitive Calvinist money culture.
I’m always amazed how wingers will spend tons of cash to condemn the poor for drug use, yet they fight to block universal health care for all. Wasn’t drug prohibition supposed to be about protecting public health? Apparently not.
A need to condemn the poor is endemic within the minds of some wealthy autocrats who, lacking any poor, could no longer flaunt their wealth. The bourgeois who believe themselves productive, and who sometimes are anything but, have a bad habit of wrapping themselves in their petty egos and acquisitions. They sometimes believe their good luck and wealth is a sign their gods favor them and few if anyone else. But then the wealthy can afford to live within their little reality bubbles.
The social contract is that if people want to live in their own bubble universe, they need to respect the greater multiverse. The problem is too many people want to profit from gratuitous intolerance, and they have made it a thriving industry.
If any ‘war’ is to be fought, it should be one waged against the narcocrats who get rewarded for bleeding the economy dry with prohibition scams.
Giordano
It doesn't affect you?
It doesn't affect you? Really?
Wait until that one day where the crack head on welfare goes and gets high on crack and decides to go rob someone. Then tell me it doesnt affect you. It could be you, your friends, or your family. Ignorance my friend is not healthy.
fallacy
he was being general. Obviously everyone has the ability to affect others in some way. Your comment is fallacious because I could easily say that the crack head YOU mention is more likely to rob someone for money to get crack without welfare. He is not ignorant, you are being foolish. You're buying right into the bullshit man.
Any publicity is
Foxnews covers more drug war issues than the other two cable news stations. In addition, they usually have a pundit to argue our POV. This segment with a blowhart prohibitionist is good in exposing the shallow thinking behind such drug testing laws. The lawyer against this drug testing bill got it right when he stressed the cost involved. The biggest draw back in this kin do format is the bigger point is often missed. In this case it wasn't.
Post new comment